Today’s News 25th January 2020

  • Poland's Disgraceful Denial Over Holocaust Commemoration
    Poland’s Disgraceful Denial Over Holocaust Commemoration

    Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    There was good reason why Polish President Andrzej Duda was prevented from addressing the Holocaust memorial event in Israel this week. The organizers anticipated he would use the event to make ugly and foolish accusations against Russia for having alleged complicity in the Nazi genocide.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    On being refused the opportunity to make such a speech, Duda then decided to cancel his attendance altogether. Such is the thin-skin of Polish sensitivity.

    Nearly 50 world leaders participated in the fifth World Holocaust Forum held at the Yad Vashem remembrance center in Jerusalem. This year’s event had added significance because it coincided with the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz on January 27, 1945.

    Lest we forget, it was the Soviet Red Army which liberated Auschwitz and the other main Nazi extermination camps, which were all predominantly located in Poland.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin was among a handful of leaders who were given the privilege to address the forum. Other speakers included U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, French President Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Prince Charles and Germany’s President Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

    By what presumption did the Polish leader think he had a right to speak at the forum over the dozens of other dignitaries who were not given the privilege to make an address? Not being indulged by the organizers, President Duda went into an infantile huff.

    The background to this spat was the furious reaction from Poland’s nationalist politicians after President Putin reminded the country last month that it has a certain share of blame along with Germany’s Nazi regime for having perpetrated the Holocaust during the World War II.

    In his speech at the Holocaust forum this week, Putin did not mention Poland by name, but he reiterated the indisputable fact that European countries – at least sections of their political class – had collaborated with the German Third Reich in carrying out the Final Solution which led to millions of deaths among Jews, Slavs, Roma and Soviet citizens.

    To be sure, millions of Polish Jews and non-Jews were exterminated by the Nazi genocidal machine. And, yes, thousands of Polish citizens heroically resisted the Nazi occupiers.

    Nevertheless, the Polish political leadership during the 1930s flirted with Hitler and his regime right up to the start of the war on September 1, 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. The Polish leadership also concurred with the anti-Semitic policies of the Third Reich. Anti-Jewish pogroms were rife in Poland during the late 1930s.

    Poland has always been apt to deny its involvement in Nazi crimes. But in recent years, under the ruling nationalist party, the habit of denial has become frenzied. In 2018, the Warsaw government introduced a new law which forbade anyone accusing Poland of past complicity in the Nazi Holocaust. That move sparked international criticism for what many saw as an attempt to launder Poland’s dirty past.

    Last year, the Polish government launched sharp criticism at the U.S. media company Netflix over a film about the Nazi death camps. The Poles objected to the depiction of the camps being situated in Poland, insisting that the territory was not Polish at the time but rather “Nazi-occupied Poland”. That’s absurd hairsplitting to avoid reality.

    At least when France’s President Macron addressed the Holocaust forum this week, he acknowledged the shameful role his country played under the collaborationist Vichy regime in transporting tens of thousands of French Jews to their deaths at Auschwitz.

    There is no way that the current Polish leadership would ever have the integrity or maturity to make similar acknowledgement. Because these vain Polish nationalists are too obsessed with a mental affliction of Russophobia and the need to re-write history in order to burnish their country’s sordid past.

    In a recent opinion article, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki had the effrontery to accuse Russia of falsifying history. He disparaged “Soviet history” which, he said, claims the Soviet forces liberated Auschwitz and the death camps, as well as the rest of Poland from Nazi oppression.

    That’s not “Soviet history”. It is objective, documented history.

    Morawiecki wrote: “In reality, it was the alliance between Nazi Germany and the USSR in 1939 that paved the way for the start of World War II. The Third Reich would not have been able to rebuild German military capability without the Soviet supply of natural resources and military cooperation. It would not have been able to defeat Poland and France so easily, nor would it have had so much freedom in preparing the devastating machinery of the Holocaust.”

    What this refers to is the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact which was signed on August 23, 1939. Moscow did so, expediently and under duress, in order to keep the Nazi war machine at bay while it built up its defenses. The Soviet Union was all the more forced into such a tactical expedience of non-aggression because the other European powers had for years constantly rebuffed appeals from Moscow for a wider security pact against Nazi Germany. Britain, France and Poland had all entered into non-aggression pacts with Hitler long before the Soviets did. The Europeans permitted Nazi Germany to remilitarize the Rhineland in 1936, annex Austria in the same year, and invade Czechoslovakia in 1938. It was a policy of collusion, giving Hitler a “free hand” to go on the rampage across Europe. Arguably, they wanted Nazi Germany to attack the dreaded Communist Soviet Union.

    However, what the Polish premier is claiming in his opinion piece is that the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression deal signed one week before the start of the World War II allowed the Third Reich to “rebuild German military capability”. He then says this enabled Hitler to “defeat Poland and France so easily”. That’s quite an achievement for an ad hoc pact that was only one week old.

    More preposterously, Morawiecki goes on to claim that the inchoate Soviet dalliance with Nazi Germany prepared the “devastating machinery of the Holocaust”.

    The Final Solution carried out in the Polish death centers only got underway after the January 1942 Wannsee Conference near Berlin chaired by Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler. By that time, Nazi Germany was already six months into its war against the Soviet Union – a war that resulted in up to 27 million Soviet deaths.

    How Polish leaders can make out that the Soviet Union was involved in enabling the Holocaust is a feat of intellectual dishonesty and immense historical corruption.

    Remembering the Holocaust, the World War II and its causes is of crucial importance. It was a product of fascism, European collusion and cynical appeasement. If we can’t accurately delineate and learn from the causes of history, then we are at the mercy of repeating the same mistakes and horrors.

    The irrational anti-Russia sentiments of Poland’s nationalist politicians, as well as their desire to sanitize the past, make their revisionism a disgrace and a danger to the present world.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 23:45

  • U.S. Presidential Partisan Divide Hits Record High
    U.S. Presidential Partisan Divide Hits Record High

    With an 89 percent approval rating from Republicans and 7 percent approval rating from Democrats, President Trump has set a new high for partisan divide in 2019 with an 82-point gap between Republican and Democrat approval, according to Gallup.

    Infographic: U.S. Presidential Partisan Divide Hits Record High | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The new record in polarization beats Trump’s 2018 partisan approval gap by three points, with other scores from former President Obama’s 2012 and 2016 years and George W. Bush in 2004 rounding out the top five.

    There’s no question Trump’s latest partisan divide is greatly influenced by his ongoing impeachment trial, which began in the Senate on Tuesday. Those in favor of impeaching Trump fall almost exactly in line with his approval ratings, with 89 percent of Democrats and only 8 percent of Republicans believing he should be removed from office, according to a recent CNN poll.

    The approval rating divide highlights a decades-long trend in increasing polarization. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each averaged approval ratings from the opposite party of 23 percent and 27 percent, respectively, which were both the first time in modern history a president had under 30 percent. Barack Obama averaged 13 percent among Republicans, making him the first to average under 20 percent. Now, Donald Trump has averaged just under 8 percent among Democrats in his first three years, which would make him the first president under 10 percent approval rating with the opposition party.

    As Jonathan Turley notes, this leaves us in truly uncharted territory that defies conventional political analysis. Indeed, that may be the most lasting legacy of this president in reframing our political equations and understandings.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 23:25

    Tags

  • How China Overtook The US As The World's Major Trading Partner
    How China Overtook The US As The World’s Major Trading Partner

    Authored by Iman Ghosh via VisualCapitalist.com,

    In 2018, trade accounted for 59% of global GDP, up nearly 1.5 times since 1980.

    Over this timeframe, international trade has transformed significantly – not just in terms of volume and composition, but also in terms of the countries that the rest of the world leans on for their most important trade relationships.

    Now, a critical shift is occurring in the landscape, and it may surprise you to learn that China has already usurped the U.S. as the world’s most dominant trading partner.

    Trading Places: A Global Shift

    Today’s animation comes from the Lowy Institute, and it pulls data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) database on bilateral trade flows, to determine whether the U.S. or China is a bigger trading partner for each country from 1980 to 2018.

    The results are stark: before 2000, the U.S. was at the helm of global trade, as over 80% of countries traded with the U.S. more than they did with China. By 2018, that number had dropped sharply to just 30%, as China swiftly took top position in 128 of 190 countries.

    The researchers pinpoint China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization as a major turning point in China’s international trade relationships. The dramatic shift that followed is clearly demonstrated in the visualization above—between 2005 and 2010, a number of countries tipped towards Chinese influence, especially in Africa and Asia.

    Over time, China’s dominance has grown dramatically. It’s no wonder then, that China and the U.S. have a contentious trade relationship themselves, as both nations battle it out for first place.

    A Tale of Two Economies

    The United States and China are competitors in many ways, but to be successful they must rely on each other for mutually beneficial trade. However, it’s also the major issue on which they are struggling to reach a common ground.

    The U.S. has been vocal about negotiating more balanced trade agreements with China. In fact, a mid-2018 poll shows that 62% of Americans consider their trade relationship with China to be unfair.

    Since 2018, both parties have faced a fraught relationship, imposing major tariffs on consumer and industrial goods—and retaliations are reaching greater and greater heights:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While a delicate truce has been reached at the moment, the trade war has caused a significant drag on global growth, and the World Bank estimates it will continue to have an effect into 2021.

    At the same time, China’s sphere of influence continues to grow.

    One Belt, One Road, One Trade Direction?

    China seems to have a finger in every pie. The nation is financing a flurry of megaprojects across Asia and Africa—but one broader initiative stands above the rest.

    China’s “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) Initiative, planned for a 2049 completion, is advancing at a furious pace. In 2019 alone, Chinese companies signed contracts worth up to $128 billion to start Chinese large-scale infrastructure projects in various countries.

    While building new highways and ports abroad is beneficial for Chinese financiers, OBOR is also about creating new markets and trade routes for Chinese goods in Asia. Recent research found that the OBOR program’s infrastructure expansion and logistics performance improvements led to positive effects on China’s exports.

    Nevertheless, it’s clear the new infrastructure network is already transforming global trade, possibly cementing China’s position as the world’s major trading partner for years to come.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 23:05

  • Students Suffer "Separation Anxiety" After Schools Take Smartphones During Class
    Students Suffer “Separation Anxiety” After Schools Take Smartphones During Class

    Smartphones continue to be one of the biggest distractions that teachers of all levels have to deal with in the classroom. 

    Now, according to the WSJ, teachers are dealing with a consequence that nobody ever could have imagined when taking kids phones in order to provide a distraction-free learning environment: separation anxiety. 

    Teachers across the US are comparing notes on what the best ways to manage this anxiety are. Some of them allow students to physically hold their phones in pouches that they can’t open during class. Others let students charge their phones at stations in class instead of having to leave them alone in their lockers. 

    Some teachers even offer extra credit to students for being able to part with their phones during class. 

    South Bronx Early College Academy Charter School had to find a way to stop students from sneaking out of class to their locker to check their phones. They took the route of buying foamlike pouches that won’t unlock without a special magnet. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The school lets students decorate their pouches and personalize them to “make them as cool as humanly possible for something that’s restricting them from their device,” according to the school’s principal, Brian Blough. 

    Blough says students were “fiending” the first few weeks waiting to have their pouches unlocked after the school day. 

    Other students tried to pry open and cut their pouches open. Eighth-grader Olamide Oladitan simply said: “It didn’t work.”

    He eventually gave up on trying to figure out a way to open his pouch. “I didn’t like it because I really wanted to get to my phone, but at the same time I didn’t hate it because it helped me get better grades,” he admitted, likely begrudgingly. 

    YouTube eve shows some “hacks” to try and get the pouches open, including one video that shows people lighting the pouches on fire. 

    Other schools, like High Point Academy Fort Worth in Texas, use apps that track how much students touch their phone during school hours. Students can earn points and rewards for not touching their phones during school hours, including Starbucks drinks and credits that allow them to drop their worst test scores. 

    Teacher Jayne Lawrence says the app works better than taking the phone. “The quickest way here to burn a relationship is to take something from them,” she commented.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Joseph Riffle in Fairborn, Ohio took a different approach with his students. The school allows them to make their own policy when it comes to phones, so he set up a charging station in the front of the room that allows his students to look at his phones from afar.

    “The expectation was you turn in and you plug in,” he said.

    But other schools say confiscating phones at the beginning of the school day is the only way to block all phone related distractions. Some schools threaten to put their students’ phones in a locked “cell block” to try and get students to comply with school policies. 

    At DREAM Charter School in New York, the school ditched collecting every phone in favor of a reward system that allows students to hold their phone instead of keeping it in a locked pouch. The students earn credits for good grades and “persisting through challenges”. 

    Roosevelt High School in Seattle saw a positive response from parents when it said it was going to require students to lock their cell phones away from the day. Parents sent the school “thank you notes and e-mails” after the policy change. 

    Delaney Ruston, a parent who once made a film about families and screen time called “Screenagers” said: “Some teachers were feeling like the bad guy and others were feeling like it was a free-for-all.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 22:45

    Tags

  • OPCW Investigator Testifies At UN That No Chemical Attack Took Place In Douma, Syria
    OPCW Investigator Testifies At UN That No Chemical Attack Took Place In Douma, Syria

    Authored by Ben Borton via TheGrayZone.com,

    In testimony before the United Nations Security Council, former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert Ian Henderson stated that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their findings were suppressed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.

    The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most consequential jobs was assisting the international body’s fact-finding mission (FFM) on the ground in Douma.

    He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia’s delegation that OPCW management had rejected his group’s scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.

    “We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred,” Henderson said, referring to the FFM team in Douma.

    The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research that “provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack.”

    Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists

    Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018. Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.

    At the time, Douma was controlled by the extremist Salafi-jihadist militia Jaysh al-Islam, which was created and funded by Saudi Arabia and formerly allied with Syria’s powerful al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.

    The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN authorization.

    Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims

    In May 2019, an internal OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian Henderson, said the “dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders” in Douma “were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft,” adding that there is “a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.”

    After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, “The evidence is overwhelming that the gas attacks were staged.” Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing “compromised reporting” and ignoring scientific evidence.

    In November, a second OPCW whistleblower came forward and accused the organization’s leadership of suppressing countervailing evidence, under pressure by three US government officials.

    WikiLeaks has published numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body’s management staff doctored the Douma report.

    As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW’s first director-general, José Bustani, decided to speak out. “The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani stated.

    “I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing,” the former OPCW head concluded.

    OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma

    On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.

    (Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full transcript of Henderson’s testimony.)

    China’s mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body’s headquarters agreement.)

    Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only OPCW inspector to question the leadership’s treatment of the Douma investigation.

    “My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,” Henderson explained.

    Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples, interviews with witnesses, and data collection.

    In July 2018, the FFM published its interim report, stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. (“The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties,” the report indicated.)

    “By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred,” Henderson told the Security Council.

    After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW leadership decided to create a new team, “the so-called FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis.”

    Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that chemical weapons had been used in Douma.

    “The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments,” Henderson remarked at the UN session.

    “The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,” Henderson stated.

    The former OPCW expert added, “I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack.

    US government pressure on the OPCW

    The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula meeting.

    Acting US representative Cherith Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the “Assad regime,” and told the UN that the “United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets” – a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda and have been involved in numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by Islamist extremists.

    The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured him to resign.

    In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US government.

    Then-Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick “Cheney wants you out.” Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you… We know where your kids live.”

    Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson

    While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop, aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics, including Ian Henderson.

    Bellingcat is funded by the US government’s regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.

    Following Henderson’s testimony, Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins tried to besmirch the former OPCW engineer’s credibility by implying he was being used by Russia. Until 2019, Higgins worked at the Atlantic Council, a pro-war think tank financed by the American and British governments, as well as by NATO.

    Supporters of the OPCW’s apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who debated Higgins, has noted that Bellingcat “have no scientific credibility at any level.” Postol says he even suspects that OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat’s highly dubious claims in its own compromised reporting.

    Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that “Higgins attributed his skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be cracked.”

    In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.

    Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe himself, because, “I’m a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.”

    Russia’s UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and representatives of the organization’s Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate in the session.

    *  *  *

    Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW’s Douma report

    Ian Henderson’s testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video:

    Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council

    “My name is Ian Henderson. I’m a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about 12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will now add a short introduction.

    I need to point out at the outset that I’m not a whistleblower; I don’t like that term. I’m a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.

    Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must stress that. However the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in certain sensitive missions.

    The concern of course relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report.

    There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.

    The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis.

    The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.

    What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the team members who deployed to Douma — in which case I really can only speak for myself at this stage — the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.

    In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack.

    This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and engineering. In my situation, it’s not a political debate. I’m very aware that there is a political debate surrounding this.

    Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.

    That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 22:25

    Tags

  • Palm Beach Real Estate Is On Fire…Except Homes Around Trump's Mar-a-Lago Resort
    Palm Beach Real Estate Is On Fire…Except Homes Around Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort

    Luxury homes in South Florida have been selling like hot cakes – mostly because mansion taxes and the capping of SALT deductions have pushed many from Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states to the tax-friendly environment of Florida.

    “I’ve been selling real estate for 34 years,” said real estate broker Rob Thomson, a Mar-a-Lago club member and the owner of Waterfront Properties & Club Communities, who spoke with Bloomberg. “This is the longest bull run of my career.”

    He said mansions, small homes, and empty lots have been in high demand, thanks to the state’s income tax rate of 0%, along with the region’s vast amount of wealth.

    Thomson said while the Miami Metropolitan Area, from Miami to West Palm Beach/Palm Beach, is booming – there’s a section of residential real estate — within a ½ mile of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club that has gone cold.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ten homes remain unsold within a four-block radius of Mar-a-Lago have been sitting on the market for an extended period.

    One of the properties is located at 1090 South Ocean Blvd. has been listed since 2016; with a listing price of $6.95 million, according to Zillow, down 26.5% from an initial $9.5 million. Four other listings have been sitting on the market since 2018; seven have already seen significant reductions in price.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There’s certainly a cloud of negativity over properties close to Mar-a-Lago – it’s a massive contrast to the eight luxury Palm Beach homes that sold in 4Q19, with an average listing time of 191 days, said Douglas Elliman Realty LLC.

    “The fact that they’re all being marketed at the same time, nearby, is not natural,” said Jonathan Miller, the CEO of Miller Samuel. “A cluster of listings, especially at the high end, is not likely to reflect a positive condition” in the market.

    Brokers in Palm Beach had different explanations for the unsold homes around the resort, and all said it did not correlate with the president.

    Paulette Koch, a broker with Corcoran Group, said the listed homes around the resort are “all coincidental,” adding that, “you can get a group of people who all want to sell [at once] for varying reasons.”

    One broker said Trump’s constant appearance at his resort is nothing but positivity for the region. Jeff Cloninger, a broker for Sotheby’s, said the benefits of the president in Palm Beach is the added security.

    Another pointed out that homes around Mar-a-Lago are directly under a flight path of planes, and noise is so loud, it has deterred many from buying houses near the resort.

    Miller has a different explanation for the unsold homes: “It’s not uncommon to have clusters of people around a celebrity or notable name trying to cash in. In other words, Trump might not be a deterrent, but he also might not be the draw they think he is. It’s more about these listings being overpriced.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 22:05

  • Don't Mess With The U.S. (Financially)
    Don’t Mess With The U.S. (Financially)

    Authored by Jim Rickards via The Daily Reckoning blog,

    I’ve been documenting financial warfare in my articles for years, but it still doesn’t get the mainstream attention it deserves.

    Because as you’ll see below, it can directly impact your wealth.

    Financial warfare tools include account seizures and freezes, expulsion from global payment systems, secondary fines and penalties on banks that do business with targeted entities, embargoes, tariffs and many other impositions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    These tools are amplified by the unique role of the U.S. dollar, which is the currency behind 60% of global reserves, 80% of global payments and almost 100% of transactions in oil.

    The U.S. controls the banks and payments systems that process dollar transactions. This leaves the U.S. well positioned to impose dollar-related sanctions.

    Much has been made of the recent killing of Iranian terrorist mastermind Qasem Soleimani. Many say it was an act of war. But guess what, folks?

    We’ve been in a full-scale war with Iran for two years now. It’s just that most people don’t realize it.

    It’s not a kinetic war with troops, missiles and ships (except Iran’s use of terrorist bombs and the U.S.’ use of drones). And it’s severely damaged the Iranian economy, which has led to protests against the regime.

    From the U.S. side, it’s a financial war. People need to stop thinking about financial sanctions as an extension of trade policy, for example.

    This is warfare. It’s just a different form of warfare.

    It’s critical to understand that financial war is not a sideshow. It may actually be the main event in today’s deeply connected and computerized world.

    North Korea is also the current target of a U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign, where harsh sanctions are applied to a wide range of banks, companies and individuals.

    As with Iran, sanctions have been instrumental in destabilizing the regime and bringing North Korea to the bargaining table to discuss its nuclear weapons programs.

    Now, Iraq is the latest country to feel the sting of U.S. dollar sanctions.

    Following the killing of Soleimani on Iraqi soil, Iraq threatened to expel all U.S. troops from Iraq. Trump answered in two parts.

    He said U.S. troops would not leave until Iraq repaid the U.S. for building bases and other infrastructure in Iraq. Trump also warned that Iraq’s access to its account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York could be terminated.

    That would make it impossible for Iraq to purchase and sell oil in dollars. It could also cause Iraq to lose access to about $3 billion currently held in that account.

    Iraq has heard the U.S. threats loud and clear. As of now, U.S. troops are still in Iraq and not planning to leave anytime soon.

    The fact that Iraqi policy could be conditioned without a shot being fired shows the raw power of financial warfare.

    The trouble is private businesses and investors can get caught in the crossfire of financial warfare.

    According to one survey, last year saw a 42% increase in cyberattacks on private companies around the world (attributable to foreign governments).

    About 20% of businesses reported daily attacks, many in the banking and financial services sectors. Only 6% of businesses in the survey claimed they weren’t targeted by a cyberattack in 2019.

    You as an investor trying to mind your own business or build wealth or expand your portfolio may get caught in the crossfire of a financial war. So you have to take that into account in your portfolio allocations and risk management.

    In today’s world, everyone’s a potential casualty of financial warfare.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 21:45

  • The Once Dead Art Of Flower-Arranging Re-Ignites So Gen Z Can "Impress Their Instagram Followers"
    The Once Dead Art Of Flower-Arranging Re-Ignites So Gen Z Can “Impress Their Instagram Followers”

    Flower arranging, outside of traditional florists, used to just be limited to housewives in the 1950s. Now, thanks to Instagram, the practice is coming back in style, attracting a younger crowd that seeks to impress their social media followers.

    For instance, Sage, a flower shop in South London, has seen a “huge increase” in interest from young people since they’ve opened, according to The Guardian. The shop offers monthly bouquet and vase arranging classes. 

    The shop’s co-founder, Iona Matheison said: “It’s young people in their mid-20s to mid-30s that are coming. It’s super popular and they’re fully booked.”

    Helena Willcocks is the 31 year old founder of The Allotment Florist, which hosts arranging workshops in West Yorkshire and London for about 60 pounds, per person, per hour and a half. She said: “It’s definitely becoming more popular, especially with younger people. In the last year we have seen a 30% increase in the number of people coming. It’s a trendy thing to do. It’s obvious by who is booking them.”

    The reigniting of arranging’s popularity could be coming from two places. First, there’s the recent pride in being a “plant parent” that we have written about here on Zero Hedge before. Also, there’s the desire to impress ones Instagram followers. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Emma Weaver, founder of Palais, said: “Flower arranging is so colourful and immediate and that’s how we’re seeing life these days, in these bright coloured squares.”

    George Plumptre, chief executive of the National Garden Scheme said:  “Flower arranging can be hugely therapeutic and creative. It provides a wonderful sense of wellbeing.”

    Willcocks echoed Weaver’s sentiments: “Is Instagram a factor? Oh yeah, 100%, depressingly. People want to photograph their work, in fact they want to photograph the whole way through,” she says. “I try to encourage them to not be on their phones but be surrounded by flowers.”

    But not all attendees are social media attention seekers. Amy Montague, a 33 year old from Nottingham, said: “It’s a creative outlet from my work in online consultancy and it’s relaxing.”

    Arranging now incorporates numerous materials other than flowers and the new wave of floristry is said to be more artistic and less boring than traditional bouquets. Weaver commented: “It’s very sculptural. We use anything from melted plastics to bespoke metal frames and do a lot of carpentry alongside more traditional flower arranging. We are putting the two together and making it more of an art form.”

    “This is art through the medium of flowers, as opposed to the old grandma thing.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 21:25

  • Are The Underlying Mechanics Of The Largest Gold ETF A Cause For Concern
    Are The Underlying Mechanics Of The Largest Gold ETF A Cause For Concern

    Submitted by Jan Nieuwenhuijs from Voima Insights,

    Are the underlying mechanics of the largest gold ETF a cause for concern?

    Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) are an important element in the global gold market. The largest gold ETF is the “SPDR Gold Trust,” which is traded on the New York Stock Exchange Arca (NYSE Arca) under the symbol “GLD.” In this article, we will examine how GLD works to understand its role in the gold market and its impact on the gold price.

    Introduction

    In general, ETFs are funds that hold and track the price of assets like a commodity or stock market index. But unlike normal funds, ETFs are conveniently traded on stock exchanges. ETF securities represent shares of ownership in the fund. In the case of GLD, shareholders own a segment of the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund, which mainly holds physical gold. So, owners of GLD shares don’t own the gold itself, but a slice of the fund. As with other derivatives, GLD provides exposure to the price of the underlying asset.

    The stock exchange is referred to as the secondary market. Here, existing shares of an ETF can be traded by all types of investors. In the primary market, ETF shares are created and redeemed by “Participating Dealers.” It’s mainly through the creation and redemption process of shares that the ETF price tracks the price of the associated asset. Let us have a look at how this works with GLD.

    The Mechanics Of GLD

    Primary market participants for GLD include (from the prospectus dated August 9, 2019):

    • The Trustee BNY Mellon Asset Servicing, which is responsible for the day-to-day administration of “the Trust” (the Fund).

    • The Custodian HSBC Bank plc (there can be sub-custodians), which stores Good Delivery gold bars for the Trust in London.

    • The Sponsor World Gold Trust Services, LLC, a subsidiary of the World Gold Council, which oversees the performance of the Trustee and the Custodian.

    • The Authorized Participants, which are the institutions authorized to create and redeem GLD shares at the Trustee. (With other ETFs, these are called the Participating Dealers.) At this moment, the Authorized Participants are Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.

    One GLD share represents 0.1 ounce of gold. (Put differently, the value of one GLD share is equal to the value of 0.1 ounce of gold. And actually, at the time of writing, it’s a little less than 0.1 ounce, for reasons to be explained below.)

    The price of GLD is set by supply and demand on the exchange where it’s traded (NYSE Arca), just like the gold price is set by supply and demand of gold in the London Bullion Market. For this article, when I mention the gold price, I refer to the spot gold price in London.

    The GLD share price tracks the gold price, mainly through arbitrage. When, for example, the price of GLD trades at a premium to the gold price, an Authorised Participant (AP) can collect a profit. The AP can buy gold, deposit the gold at the Trustee, which creates shares in return for the AP, who can sell these on the stock market. This process will drive up the gold price and lower the price of GLD. APs will jump the arbitrage opportunity until the gap is closed. Naturally, the arbitrage works the other way around when GLD trades at a discount to the gold price. In this situation, APs will redeem shares at the Trustee to get gold out that they can sell in the London Bullion Market.

    Below you can see a simplified graph I have made of the creation and redemption process of GLD shares.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    GLD securities can only be created or redeemed in a “Basket” of 100,000 shares. Because one share represents 0.1 ounce, 10,000 fine troy ounces (about 25 Good Delivery bars) are required for creating 100,000 shares of the Trust. Vice versa, 100,000 shares are required for redeeming (withdrawing) 10,000 fine troy ounces from the Trust.

    Over time small amounts of the Trust’s gold are sold to pay for the Custodian’s storage fees and the Trustee’s expenses. This gradual selling is the reason why one GLD share represents less than 0.1 ounce of gold, and this amount continuously declines. The day GLD was launched, one share represented 0.1 ounce; at the time of writing, one share represents 0.094 ounce. As a consequence, currently, APs need to deposit less than 10,000 ounces at the Trustee in order to create 100,000 shares and will receive less than 10,000 ounces when redeeming 100,000 shares.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the chart above, you can see that the gold price and the level of GLD inventory are correlated. The chart suggests that buyers and sellers of GLD contribute to the directional trend of the gold price. Consider, for example, when the spot gold price went up and at the same time GLD inventory swelled. The APs must have been buying gold and creating shares. Their incentive for creating shares was likely that the GLD price (occasionally) was trading at a premium to the spot gold price.

    However, the prospectus reads that the APs can also “act for their own accounts or as agents for broker-dealers, custodians and other securities market participants that wish to create or redeem Baskets.” And, “Shareholders who are not Authorized Participants will only be able to redeem their Shares through an Authorized Participant.” Implying, if you own less than 100,000 GLD shares, you can’t redeem for gold. But, if you are well connected to one of the APs, and you own a Basket of 100,000 shares or a multitude of that, you can redeem for gold.

    In many countries, certain investment funds are not allowed to own commodities outright but are allowed to own regulated securities like GLD. These funds might be forced to buy GLD or a similar ETF if they want some exposure to the gold price. These funds can be sizable, and GLD’s secondary market might, therefore, be illiquid for them. On request, APs can buy or sell (create or redeem) shares for such clients in the primary market. To give you an idea of the gold trade’s extent, observe that in 2019 the average daily gold trading volume in the London Bullion Market was $45 billion. For comparison, the average daily trading volume in GLD at NYSE Arca was $1 billion.

    Whether it’s arbitrage, or providing liquidity for institutional clients, when APs create (redeem) shares, this gives upward (downward) pressure on the spot gold price, and increases (decreases) GLD inventory.

    Myths and Risks

    There is always much hyperbole in the gold space, and when it comes to GLD, it’s no different. For years, rumors have been circulating that GLD isn’t backed by physical gold. Although the bar list of GLD is online, and twice a year, a highly respected auditor inspects the gold (click here to the view most recent audit report). Chances are very slim that the gold isn’t there.

    Furthermore, the prospectus reads, “Creation of Baskets may only be made after the requisite gold is deposited in the allocated account of the Trust. … All of the Trust’s gold is fully allocated at the end of each business day.” According to my analysis, the gold is there.  

    Still, I wouldn’t buy GLD if I didn’t have to. When it comes to owning gold, one significant rationale is that gold is the only universally accepted financial asset without counterparty risk. Gold protects your purchasing power and offers insurance on your savings because it’s a physical element. As such, it can’t be printed out of thin air (inflate) or be late with its payments (default).

    Gold is truly independent of the financial system. Every insurance product created by the financial system—whether that be a sovereign bond, a fiduciary currency, a futures contract, a credit default swap, etc.—has counterparty risk. Since all major financial institutions are nowadays connected, risk contagion is guaranteed. An insurance against the financial system is, therefore, ideally to be found outside the financial system, namely, in gold.

    As financial expert Simon Mikhailovich puts it:

    Buying an insurance policy against failure of the insurance industry from an insurance company is nonsense. If the insured event occurred, the company that sold the policy would fail and the policy would be worthless. 

    So why would you own GLD? Sure, it offers exposure to the spot gold price. But when things go haywire, GLD exposes you to many counterparties, which would be BNY Mellon Asset Servicing (Trustee), which is a division of The Bank of New York Mellon, HSBC (Custodian), potential sub-custodians (The Bank of England, ICBC Standard Bank, JPMorgan, Scotiabank, and UBS), NYSE Arca, and the Authorized Participants. Owning GLD is like owning a gold derivative with as much counterparty risk as possible.

    Not surprisingly, the GLD prospectus reads like an endless disclaimer. On page 11, it states, “the Custodian will not be liable for any delay in performance … of any of its obligations … beyond its reasonable control, including acts of God…”. And on page 13, “In the event of the insolvency of the Custodian, a liquidator may seek to freeze access to the gold held in all of the accounts held by the Custodian, including the Trust Allocated Account.”

    The problem with all the counterparties involved with GLD is that they don’t primarily deal with gold. These are the biggest banks in the world, and if any branch of these banks fails, it can have consequences for the entire entity, and GLD will potentially suffer too. In my view, it’s best to store gold outside of the financial system.

    *  *  *

    The views expressed on Voima Insight are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views or position of Voima Gold. Stay up to date, subscribe to Voima Insight—click here


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 21:05

  • "No, No America" – Mass Protests Erupt In Baghdad Demanding U.S. Troops Withdraw 
    “No, No America” – Mass Protests Erupt In Baghdad Demanding U.S. Troops Withdraw 

    Al Jazeera English is reporting that thousands of Iraqi protesters have hit the street in Baghdad after the influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for a “million-strong” march to demand the withdraw of U.S. coalition forces from the country. 

    NBC News Tehran Bureau Chief & correspondent Ali Arouzi said hundreds of thousands of protesters marched across Baghdad on Friday, demanding U.S. troops leave the country and close all military bases and embassies.  

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Protestors held signs that read “no, no to America” and “no, no to occupation” amid a sea of nationalism and anti-Americanism erupting across the country’s capital. 

    Others were heard on loudspeakers blasting the phrase: “Death to America. Death to Israel.”

    The presence of U.S. coalition forces in the country has become a hot subject since President Trump launched a drone attack on Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, killing both, earlier this month near Baghdad International Airport.

    The Green Zone, the International Zone of Baghdad and home of the U.S. embassy, has been peppered with rocket attacks since the killing of Soleimani. 

    Iraq’s parliament voted to expel all foreign troops, including 5,000 U.S. forces from the country, and asked the government to cancel assistance from the U.S.-led coalition that has been working with the Iraqi Army in the eradication of ISIS. 

    A senior U.S. official said Thursday that the Trump administration has yet to hold talks with Iraq about U.S. troops exiting the country. 

    Several weeks ago, President Trump threatened severe sanctions against Iraq if its parliament enforced a law that would expel U.S. troops from the country. 

    “We have a very extraordinarily expensive airbase, that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it,” Trump told reporters.

    Twitter users have documented Friday’s massive protest, and Aurora Intel said: “the main street being used in #Baghdad, #Iraq for the protests) and using 4 people per m2 this meets a rough estimate of 600000 people able to be at this protest, if i’ve got the right location.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Here are other social media accounts detailing the protest: 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 20:45

  • Professors Donate To Democrats Over Republicans By A 95:1 Ratio, New Study Finds
    Professors Donate To Democrats Over Republicans By A 95:1 Ratio, New Study Finds

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    Diversity in hiring is the top priority of most colleges and universities. However, the effort to hire more women, minorities, and LGBT individuals notably lacks one group: ideological diversity.

    It is well-known that most faculty are composed of an overwhelming majority of liberal and democratic members. However, this view, while generally accepted, is largely anecdotal. Now a new study by Heterodox Academy Director of Research Sean Stevens and Brooklyn College Professor Mitchell Langbert claims to have put hard numbers on that lack of diversity.

    In reviewing records with the Federal Election Commission, they say that they found that professors gave to Democrats over Republicans by a 95:1 ratio.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The researchers looked at 2,301 political donations and found that 2,081 went to Democrats while just 22 went to Republicans. Only nine professors gave to both parties.

    An earlier study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a 10:4 ratio. Business Management Associate Professor Mitchell Langbert reviewed the party affiliations of 8,688 professors at 51 of the top 60 liberal arts colleges listed in U.S. News and World Report’s 2017 rankings.

    These studies magnify concerns for those of us who have objected to increasing speech regulation on campuses — restrictions that have seem to be more often applied to conservative students and speakers. Indeed, academics have at times been at the heart of such attacks on the free speech rights of conservatives on campus. In one incident at the California State University where assistant professor of public health professor Greg Thatcher is shown on a videotape wiping out the pro-life statements written in chalk by members of Fresno State Students for Life.  

    Perhaps the most unnerving controversy involved the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women.  She was convicted and sentenced for the crime.  Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. Faculty and student defenders attacked the pro-life advocates and one even referred to them as “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech.  Miller-Young should have been fired but was instead lionized by faculty and students.

    recent study found at Harvard found that only 35 percent of conservative students felt free to share their views on campuses. That chilling effect is the result of not just open hostility to conservative voices on campus but a striking lack of diversity among academics in terms of ideology.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 20:25

  • Asia Panics: Virus Masks Sell Out As Prices Skyrocket Amid Coronavirus Fears
    Asia Panics: Virus Masks Sell Out As Prices Skyrocket Amid Coronavirus Fears

    We mentioned on Thursday how worldwide internet search volumes for “virus mask” had erupted this week as the spread of coronavirus becomes uncontrollable across Asia. The World Health Organization (WHO) has yet to declare an international virus alarm as the evolution of the epidemic broadens.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    New reports suggest virus masks and hand sanitizers are in short supply in some regions of Asia, reported the South China Morning Post.

    Pharmacies across Hong Kong on Friday afternoon sold out of masks that prevent the wearer from contracting the deadly virus.

    The most popular respirator is the 3M N95 Medical Mask that has sold out in many pharmacies across Hong Kong. Any remaining N95 masks have been sold for as much as HK$60 (about $7.75) per unit, a massive +700% mark, considering the masks usually sell for less than HK$7.77 ($1).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Taiwan this week banned the export of masks for the next month while the government stockpiles reserves.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Across Macao, residents have been hit with mask rations; only ten per customer is allowed who can present pharmacies with a valid government ID card.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    So far, more than 900 cases have been confirmed with 26 dead. China has restricted travel for +40 million people. The spread of the virus has broadened from China, now seen in the U.S., Australia, Russia, Mexico, Scotland, Ireland, Singapore, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Macao, India, Japan, and South Korea.

    As we noted Thursday, Americans started googling “virus mask” after the first coronavirus case was confirmed in Seattle earlier this week. People in Washington, Hawaii, California, District of Columbia, and Massachusetts googled it the most.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Americans also searched “n95 mask,” and were also curious where they could purchase these respirators. Many searched “n95 mask cvs,” “n95 mask home depot,” and “n95 mask target.”

    And already, some N95 masks have sold out on Amazon. It seems as the virus continues to spread around the world at an alarming rate – virus masks, especially the N95 – are becoming a hot commodity. Bullish on virus mask.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As far as world epidemics and the global stock market performance, here’s a chart showing what could happen next: 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 20:05

  • Guggenheim: 10 Macro Themes To Watch In 2020
    Guggenheim: 10 Macro Themes To Watch In 2020

    Scott Minerd, Chairman of Investments and Global CIO, and Guggenheim’s Macroeconomic and Investment Research Group analyze the 10 macroeconomic trends likely to shape monetary policy and investment performance this year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Among their major themes:

    1. Household net worth gains will continue to support consumption, the main driver of growth for the U.S. economy, even with business investment contracting and the manufacturing sector experiencing a recession.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    2. The housing market will contribute positively to U.S. economic growth. Mortgage rates have come down a full percentage point over the past year, helping home sales and construction recover, a trend which will continue into 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    3. We forecast the Federal Reserve balance sheet, which has been a key driver of markets in recent years, will grow at a much slower pace in 2020, which could undercut the “QE-lite” market narrative.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    4. A tight labor market will further depress corporate profit margins in 2020. In an environment of limited pricing power, businesses are struggling to pass on higher labor costs, resulting in declining profitability that should weigh on hiring and investment plans.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    5. Corporate defaults will rise as debt burdens weigh on the credit markets. In today’s corporate credit markets, which include more below-investment grade-rated debt and more BBB-rated debt (the lowest IG rating) than ever before, it is unsustainable for firms to operate with historically high leverage without a rise in defaults.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    6. Credit rating downgrades will add headwinds to business investment. Weak earnings growth and a continued increase in leverage has resulted in more credits being downgraded than upgraded by the ratings agencies. Lower ratings will make it costlier to take on additional debt curtail business hiring and investment.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    7. The Fed’s “soft-landing” may prove elusive, as momentum in the labor market will fade as the pool of unemployed workers continues to shrink and economic growth cools. Historically, once the two-year change in the unemployment rate turns positive, the economy enters a recession.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    8. Consumer confidence will hinge on the health of the labor market. For confidence to rise from here, the economy will need to somehow create jobs at a faster pace in 2020, which seems like a tall order given an unemployment rate at a 50-year low.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    9. Historically high wealth and income inequality will fuel popular support for economically disruptive policies such as a wealth tax, higher corporate tax rates, universal basic income, and Medicare for all, increasing policy uncertainty.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    10. The 2020 election will be more consequential for the economy than any election in the past. Spurred by social media, 24-hour cable news, and high political polarization, consumers are making economic decisions based on political developments.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    Download full pdf here…


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 19:45

  • Lindsey Graham Attacks, Then Protects Bidens – Will Oppose Any Attempts To Call As Impeachment Witnesses
    Lindsey Graham Attacks, Then Protects Bidens – Will Oppose Any Attempts To Call As Impeachment Witnesses

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spent a good portion of Thursday and Friday theatrically railing against the Bidens and their relationships in Ukraine – only to staunchly oppose any efforts to call them as impeachment witnesses during the ongoing Senate trial of President Trump, stating “this needs to end.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I don’t want to call Hunter Biden. I don’t want to call Joe Biden. I want someone to look at this when this is done,” said Graham, adding “To my Republican friends, you may be upset about what happened in the Ukraine with the Bidens but this is not the venue to litigate that.

    “I don’t think it’s wrong for us to look at the Biden connection in the Ukraine, the $3 million given to the vice president’s son by the most corrupt company in the Ukraine,” he said, adding “To my Republican friends, you may be upset about what happened in the Ukraine with the Bidens but this is not the venue to litigate that.”

    (See comments at 16:57 and 19:44)

    “I feel pretty confident, though I don’t know it for a fact, that the defense team is going to want to call its witnesses, including but not limited to the Bidens, [and] as a fact witness the whistleblower,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA).

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), meanwhile, has left the door open to calling the Bidens to appear, saying “When you get to that issue, I can’t imagine that only the witnesses that our Democratic colleagues would want to call would be called.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 19:25

    Tags

  • Tankers Idle At Libyan Ports As Oil Exports Dry Up
    Tankers Idle At Libyan Ports As Oil Exports Dry Up

    Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

    Ten oil tankers capable of carrying some 8 million barrels of oil are idling near some of Libya’s oil export terminals, tanker-tracking data monitored by Bloomberg showed on Thursday, as the Libyan port blockade entered an ugly sixth day.

    Groups loyal to eastern strongman General Khalifa Haftar blocked virtually all exports from the African oil producer, and when storage reaches maximum capacity, it will result in a complete loss of all of Libya’s 1.2 million barrels per day of oil production and exports.

    “Shutdown of all affected oil fields will result in a loss of crude oil production of 1.2 million b/d and daily financial losses of approximately $77 million,” Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) said on Monday, confirming that nearly all of the OPEC member’s production will be lost due to the blockade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image of oil tanker at Ras Lanuf, Libya. Source: Reuters

    This is the largest outage on the oil market since the September attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, yet it has failed to move oil prices higher.

    Market participants are largely ignoring the Libyan outage and are focused on the prospects of global oil demand growth this year and the pace of supply increase from non-OPEC producers, primarily the United States, Brazil, Guyana, and Norway.

    In addition, the new fear on the market, the outbreak of a coronavirus in China, could cut oil demand and push oil prices down by nearly $3 a barrel, Goldman Sachs said earlier this week.

    “However while markets are obsessing over virus developments, they seem to be ignoring a number of oil supply risks in the market, which in aggregate would far outweigh the demand impact from the Wuhan virus,” ING strategists said on Thursday.  

    According to ING’s estimates, the current outages around the world sum up to around 1.4 million bpd, “which would be more than enough to shift the global market into deficit over 1H20,” said Warren Patterson, ING’s Head of Commodities Strategy and Senior Commodities Strategist Wenyu Yao.  

    “While the market may shrug at supply losses from Libya, it would be more difficult for the market to ignore large Iraqi supply losses if they became a reality, as Iraq is OPEC’s second-largest producer,” they noted.  


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 19:05

  • San Francisco's First Transgender Halfway House Opens
    San Francisco’s First Transgender Halfway House Opens

    The city of San Francisco opened its first low-income transgender and gender non-conforming halfway house as part of the city’s Our Trans Home SF program, which offers help with case management, rental subsidies and finding affordable housing, according to the Bay Area Reporter

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jane Cordova cleans the windowsill in her new room at the Trans Home SF apartment, which overlooks the cable car route. Photo: Rick Gerharter (via the Bay Area Reporter).

    Funded with a $2.3 million allocation from the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Transgender Initiatives, the ‘Trans Home’ on Washington Street will provide a ‘safe shelter and supportive services for 13 new residents, who will share a three-story building with 13 bedrooms, three kitchens and a common living space,’ according to the report.

    The apartments, which have mirror floor plans, feature wood floors throughout and original moldings and other decorative details. In the second-floor flat, the right side front room has a covered over tile fireplace and mantel, while the back room features a built-in wall cabinet with glass-paneled doors.

    Each bedroom will have a locked door for the privacy of the residents. They will be asked to abide by a set of rules appropriated from the ones Larkin Street uses with its youth tenants. After three violations, the residents will be asked to leave, said Newman. –Bay Area Reporter

    Residents will be allowed to live in the house rent-free for a year while receiving assistance with finding a longer-term place to live, according to the report.

    “I think it is great. I love the location,” said Trans Home’s first resident, 60-year-old Jane Cordova, adding “I like to cook … I am the mother of the house.”

    Come February Jane Cordova will move out of a shelter for LGBT adults in San Francisco’s Mission district for her own room in a Chinatown apartment. The scalloped windows in her bedroom will look out onto the city’s famed cable car line, which stops mere feet away.

    Cordova, 60, a transgender woman, is the first resident selected for the Trans Home SF on Washington Street, the city’s first transitional housing program for transgender and gender-nonconforming adults. The program aims to provide apartments for 12 individuals age 25 and older who will be able to live rent-free for a year as they receive support in landing a job, enrolling in school, and saving money to move into their own apartment. –Bay Area Reporter

    “Housing affordability and homelessness continue to impact our most marginalized communities, including our trans community members, who are 18 times more likely to experience homelessness,” said Mayor London Breed in a Thursday ribbon-cutting ceremony.

    “Increasing housing and ensuring equity across our City is my top priority, which is why I am so proud to open San Francisco’s first Trans Home on Washington Street. This new program will provide trans people with the safety and support they as they find a permanent home in San Francisco,” she added.

    While there are some shelters across the nation who serve the homeless LGBTQ community, temporary housing for members of the community can be especially difficult.

    Even in San Francisco — a city historically seen as a place where trans people would converge — one of every two trans San Franciscans have experienced homelessness.

    The space is part of the Our Trans Home SF program, an initiative that supports hundreds of members of the TGNC community by offering help with case management, rental subsidies and housing navigation. –NY Daily News

    Transgender respondents surveyed in 2015 revealed that 70% feel they have been mistreated in some form or another because of their gender orientation – including being evicted from shelters, physically attacked, verbally harassed or sexually assaulted.

    “The new program in San Francisco is clearly filling a void that exists in in safe and affirming spaces for transgender people,” said Sarah McBride, Human Rights Campaign national press secretary in a statement to the Daily News, adding “For far too many transgender people who are struggling with housing insecurity, safe and affirming-shelter remains out of reach.”

    McBride is “absolutely hopeful” that other cities will follow suit.

    “There are a number of different steps that hat can and should be taken to address both housing and security for the trans community, and also the specific fear around discrimination in short-term living shelters,” she said, adding “And that includes the need for cities, states and our federal government to pass clear protections from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in employment, housing, public spaces and government funding.”

    Eight residents have already been selected to live in Trans House, while five more will join once the third-floor units are open.

    In October, the city awarded $1.15 million to two nonprofits to provide direct rental subsidies to transgender and gender-nonconforming people in their homes or to help them find housing.

    “The ongoing housing crisis in our city continues to impact our most marginalized communities including our trans community,” read a statement from Breed. “Meanwhile the community continues to be under constant attack by the federal administration who is attempting to legalize discrimination and erase transgender people. The Our Trans Home SF program is a vital step forward in assuring our trans community is housed, safe, and can thrive in San Francisco.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 18:45

  • The Richmond Rally Is A Perfect Example Why You Can't Trust The Media To Provide Reliable Intel
    The Richmond Rally Is A Perfect Example Why You Can’t Trust The Media To Provide Reliable Intel

    Authored by Terry Trahan via The Organic Prepper blog,

    If you’ve been watching the news in the last few days, you are sure to be aware of the Gun Rights Rally held in Richmond, VA. And, depending on which news you watch, your ideas of what happened, who attended, what the rally was about, and how it proceeded could be radically different than the person next to you at work.

    On one side, it was a show of force or terrorism by ‘white nationalists’, militias, supremacists, etc…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And on the other, it was a diverse and peaceful rally to show the state government of the Commonwealth of VA to not intrude further on Constitutional Rights.

    And while I definitely fall on the side of the latter, I cannot think of a better real-time example of the value of not just information, but trusting the sources, evaluating bias, and the value of collecting information from other, opposing sources and viewpoints in order to make good decisions for your survival in the urban area.

    The value of good intelligence

    In the USE&E approach, information and intelligence (in the military sense, not the intellectual sense) are some of the most valuable things we can have. It helps us make decisions, lets us see what may be happening in our world that we need to prepare for, and gives us a view of enemies, allies, neutral parties, resources, and other things to make our lives better.

    The first rule of intelligence gathering is to listen to it all, but believe none of it until you can verify it independently. This is especially true when you are inclined to trust the source.

    A popular saying in old journalism schools is; “If your mother says she loves you, verify it with three sources.” This goes double for life-saving or actionable intel. As much as you might like a radio host, you should take their information at face value until you can get it from a few different sources.

    There are a few reasons why.

    What is the reason for the information?

    In a mass media endeavor, information is not the prime reason for a show. Advertisers are.

    There is a certain alternative host that is known as the greatest water filter salesman in history, and this is for a reason. No matter what knowledge he puts out, his primary job is delivering for advertisers.

    It doesn’t mean his information is wrong or right, it means you need to take it for what it is, and get other, corroborating stories that will either prove or disprove it.

    Look out for willful disinformation and propaganda

    The next category is watching out for willful disinformation. This is probably the most common and rampant occurrence when seeking sources. The cause is usually easy to see if you can maintain a neutral viewpoint as you are consuming the news or information.

    Mostly, it is doled out as half-truths dressed up as the full truth in order to advance an agenda, make someone look good or bad, or distract you from seeing the whole picture. The worst of it plays into your biases to keep you docile, or even worse, thinking that you are doing something worthwhile when in reality, you are just being kept busy and out of the way.

    A nasty side effect is that you will usually share the disinformation, thus spreading it to different people, and roping them into that loop. This takes advantage of the normal human instinct to share what we find important and helpful with those close to us.

    On a smaller scale, like work, for example, most of us have experience with the coworker that will half-lie for their own benefit, file false HR grievances to sabotage the competition, or various other acts using information as a weapon. This is the same thing I was talking about above, just on a different scale.

    The final category is outright propaganda used to steer a population or a person into a false belief or false action.

    We can see examples of this all around us, and the mainstream media’s behavior over the last few years can be used as a model to learn about this.

    Why you have to watch out for bad intel

    Now, after all of that, here is why I find it important to talk about this. As mentioned above, information is a currency all it’s own. It enables us to make proper decisions and act when needed.

    But there are other reasons that looking at these things is important. Time is the most valuable resource we have. We need to spend our time wisely, and wasting it on false information is dangerous. It takes our time away from things that will really help us in the world we live in and makes us waste even more time worrying about things that do not matter. Neither of these things makes our lives better or our prepping worthwhile.

    Another reason is that we need to watch against being guided or steered into harmful action, or inaction that benefits others but not ourselves.

    The main reason, however, is the need to make the decisions for the lives we live now, and the lives we want to live in the future. If we continuously follow rabbit trails, swallow unproven conspiracies, let media inflame and enrage us, we are not living and preparing for our lives. We are reacting to others and living for them.

    In the end, prepping and surviving requires us to act in our own best interest. We cannot do that if we do not have clear sight and a calm mind. We cannot help others if we do not know what is actually happening.

    We cannot make allies and find helpers if we have a false picture of who to trust or believe.

    In this case, we can become our own worst enemies. We are the only ones that can deceive ourselves to the point of danger. The more information we can trust, the less we can be susceptible to fooling ourselves based on what others try to shovel us.

    Be skeptical.

    Sometimes it is obvious that we are seeing a piece of disinformation, and sometimes it plays on a blindspot we have. Many of the false “be aware of this” viral posts on Facebook take advantage of our lack of knowledge of criminal behavior. Like the posts recently warning women about the zip tying of windshield wipers as a prelude to being abducted. If you don’t know how this actually happens, you will be worried about a false problem, and not looking for real danger signs, thus making you less safe.

    In the future, I will be talking about warning networks, neighborhood networks, how to set up varying networks locally, and things to pay attention to in an urban environment to stay safe and prepared. We will also discuss various tricks of the trade and ways to get by. But none of that information will help if you cannot trust the sources you receive your information from.

    Be skeptical.

    Be realistic.

    Trust your gut.

    Be discerning.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 18:25

  • UK Researcher Predicts Over 250,000 Chinese Will Have Coronavirus In Ten Days
    UK Researcher Predicts Over 250,000 Chinese Will Have Coronavirus In Ten Days

    When it comes to estimating the human capital and potential fallout from a highly contagious epidemic, arguably the most important variable is the R0 (“R-naught”) value of the disease, which represents the average number of secondary cases arising from an average primary case in a entirely susceptible population. That’s the technical definition, a simpler one is that the R0, or basic reproductive number, of a contagious disease is the number of cases that a case of the disease generates over the course of its infectious period in a susceptible population. The higher this number, the more dangerous the disease, the more lethal the outcome.

    Some indicative R0s are 0.9 – 2.1 for the common flu while the 1918-1919 pandemic-causing Spanish flu was estimated to have ranged from 1.4 – 2.8, with a mean of 2. Some other notable R0s are shown below, and note that SARS was between 2 and 5:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So what about the R0 of 2019-nCoV, also known as the coronavirus that has claimed over three dozen lives in China and infected (at least) 1,000 people? Naturally, since the disease is most active in China which is notoriously opaque especially when it comes to matters that can cause a mass panic, the best one can do is guess, and that’s what the World Health Organization did yesterday when it issued a statement on the coronavirus epidemic with the following projection:

    Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented. Amplification has occurred in one health care facility. Of confirmed cases, 25% are reported to be severe. The source is still unknown (most likely an animal reservoir) and the extent of human-to-human transmission is still not clear.

    Needless to say, while 2.5 is quite high, and in line with that of the Spanish flu epidemic  which infected about half a billion people back in 1918, killing as many as 100 million before it eventually fizzled out, the real coronavirus R0 number may end up being far higher. That is the working hypothesis of Jonathan Read, a UK expert on the transmission and evolutionary dynamics of infectious diseases, who has published a paper with four colleagues that estimates transmission parameters for the Wuhan coronavirus, calculates that the R0 of 2019-nCoV to be between 3.6-4.0 or roughly the same as SARS, and reaches a conclusion about spread of the coronavirus epidemic that is frankly terrifying.

    In “Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions“, Reed et al, write that with an R0 of between 3.6 and 4.0, roughly 72-75% of transmissions “must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing.”

    This is a major problem because Reed estimates that only 5.1% of infections in Wuhan are identified (as of Jan 24), “indicating a large number of infections in the community, and also reflecting the difficulty in detecting cases of this new disease.” Furthermore, since all of this is happening in China which is not known for making the most socially-beneficial decisions under pressure, there is an ominous possibility that Reed is actually overly optimistic.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Reed wastes no time to get to his terrifying conclusion which is that if no change in control or transmission happens, then further outbreaks will occur in other Chinese cities, “and that infections will continue to be exported to international destinations at an increasing rate.”

    As a result, in 10 days time, or by February 4, 2020, Reed‘s model predicts the number of infected people in Wuhan to be greater than 250 thousand (with an prediction interval, 164,602 to 351,396);

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Epidemic predictions for (A) Wuhan, (B) selected Chinese cities and (C) selected countries. Estimated detected cases are also plotted for Wuhan.

    After Wuhan, the cities with the largest outbreaks elsewhere in China are expected to be Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Chongqing and Chengdu.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Predicted epidemic sizes (number of currently infected individuals) in selected cities on 4 February 2020 assuming no change in transmissibility from current time to 4 February.

    Reed also predicts that by 4 Feb 2020, the countries at greatest risk of importing infections through air travel are Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, USA, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and Vietnam. In short: much of Asia will infected, and from there, the rest of the world awaits.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Connectivity of Wuhan to other cities and provinces in mainland China, based on total commercial airline traffic from Wuhan in January 2017.

    Critically, Reed’s model alleges that Beijing was woefully late in its response and that recently imposed “travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on 4 February.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Effect of imposing travel restrictions from/to Wuhan on 23 Jan 2020 onwards on the number of infections in other Chinese cities

    Reed’s prediction is in line with other modelling studies of travel restrictions, which find that reducing travel only serves to delay the epidemic reaching other locations, rather than suppressing the spread entirely. Still, it is important to note that his model only considered air travel, and did not consider the potential impact of travel restrictions relating to land transportation.

    That said, Reed admits there is a chance that he is wrong, largely due to using flawed assumptions:

    Our findings are critically dependent on the assumptions underpinning our model, and the timing and reporting of confirmed cases, and there is considerable uncertainty associated with the outbreak at this early stage.

    Yet even with these caveats in mind, Reed’s work suggests that a basic reproductive number for this 2019-nCoV outbreak is materially, perhaps catastrophically higher compared to other emergent coronaviruses, “suggesting that containment or control of this pathogen may be substantially more difficult.”

    Even assuming that most of Reed’s assumptions are overly harsh and pessimistic, his summary leaves little hope that the Coronavirus epidemic will be contained any time soon:

    “We are still in the early days of this outbreak and there is much uncertainty in both the scale of the outbreak, as well as key epidemiological information regarding transmission. However, the rapidity of the growth of cases since the recognition of the outbreak is much greater than that observed in outbreaks of either SARS or MERS-CoV. This is consistent with our higher estimates of the reproductive number for this outbreak compared to these other emergent coronaviruses, suggesting that containment or control of this pathogen may be substantially more difficult.”

    Finally, while Reed makes no observations on the potential mortality associated with nCoV, one can make a broad observation: late on Friday, China’s Hubei province reported 15 additional coronavirus deaths, which added to the previously reported 26 casualties, bringing the total to 41. And with roughly 1,100 confirmed cases, this means that the mortality rate of the diseases has just jumped from roughly 2.5% to 4%. Which means that if Reed is correct, and if 250,000 people in Hubei alone will be infected by February 4, no less than 10,000 Chinese people will be dead in the next 2-3 weeks.

    What happens after that – with China effectively paralyzed by fear and the economy grinding to a halt as nobody leave their home – is anyone’s guess.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 18:12

  • Absurdistan: MO Librarians Face Year In Jail For Not Banning "Prurient" Books
    Absurdistan: MO Librarians Face Year In Jail For Not Banning “Prurient” Books

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, your finances, and your prosperity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Which specific body parts can women expose before being sex offenders?

    After installing fiberglass insulation, Tilli Buchanan and her husband stripped off their shirts in the garage for safety reasons.

    They didn’t want to track any of the debris into the house. While walking topless to the shower, Tilli’s stepchildren saw her bare chested.

    Two years later, the children’s biological mother reported the incident to authorities.

    Tilli was charged with “child sex abuse” under Utah criminal code 76-9-702.5(2)(a)(ii)(B) for exposing “the female breast below the top of the areola. . .”

    Rather than argue that this specific incident was not sexual, Tilli opted to challenge the entire law.

    She claimed that the law is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. She and her husband were in the exact same state of undress, but she was charged with a crime, and he was not.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What has unfolded in the courts is a lengthy and ridiculous discussion about male and female body parts, and what constitutes lewdness.

    Unfortunately for Tilli, the judge ruled against her, and she could face prison time, plus ten years on the sex offender registry.

    Click here to read the full ruling.

    *  *  *

    Missouri bill proposes imprisonment for librarians who don’t ban books

    A Missouri bill would create “community oversight boards,” (i.e. censorship boards) to decide what books are appropriate for certain ages.

    The bill says children should not have access to any book which includes descriptions of sexual content that “appeals to the prurient interest of minors.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And according to the bill, sexual content includes even mere mentions of nudity.

    Bear in mind– we’re not just talking about the Game of Thrones books, which are pretty clearly intended for adult audiences.

    This applies to even classics like Bram Stoker’s Dracula, DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterly’s Lover, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, James Joyce’s Ulysses, Hemingway’s The Garden of Eden, Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind, and of course, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. 

    There are dozens more.

    The ban would be in effect at all town libraries across the state. And if librarians don’t aggressively enforce the book ban, they could face a year in prison.

    Just imagine A YEAR IN PRISON because some eighth grader was reading Shakespeare.

    What’s even more interesting is that the bill doesn’t seem to think violence is inappropriate.

    So the murder of two children in Lord of the Flies would be fine, but not the innocent skinny-dipping in the lagoon.

    Click here for the full story.

    *  *  *

    County threatens to demolish Amish homes for code violations

    Amish people are exercising their religious freedom to live a simple life without any technology. And most state and local governments tend to leave them alone.

    But for some reason, a Michigan county decided to pick a fight with the local Amish community.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    County officials posted notices on several Amish houses that their homes were unfit for human occupation because they did not have modern plumbing.

    The county says unless they are brought up to code, the houses will be demolished.

    Click here for the full story.

    *  *  *

    12 years in prison for possession of phone

    Willie Nash was booked on a misdemeanor charge and spent some time in a Mississippi jail.

    During the booking process, the jail staff failed to take the man’s phone.

    Willie clearly didn’t know that there was a ban on phones, or else didn’t think it was a huge deal, because he asked a jailer to charge the phone for him.

    The jailer confiscated the phone, reported the incident, and Willie was charged with possession of a phone in jail.

    In Mississippi, the possession of a phone while in jail carries a prison sentence of 3 to 15 YEARS.

    The judge, feeling especially lenient, magnanimously opted to sentence the man to a patry TWELVE years instead of the maximum fifteen.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For having a phone. Because the jail staff’s failure during booking.

    Willie appealed, and the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the twelve year sentence was perfectly reasonable.

    Click here for the full story.

    *  *  *

    And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 17:45

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 24th January 2020

  • Turkey Demands Greece "Demilitarize" 16 Aegean Islands Amid Gas Drilling Dispute
    Turkey Demands Greece “Demilitarize” 16 Aegean Islands Amid Gas Drilling Dispute

    At a moment tensions are soaring over Turkey’s expansive East Mediterranean claims, and after starting early last summer it began sending oil and gas exploration and drilling ships off Cyprus’ coast, Ankara is demanding that Greece “demilitarize” its islands in the Aegean Sea, reports Bloomberg

    The demand from Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, who formally requested Greece move to withdraw armed forces and weaponry from 16 Aegean islands near Turkey on Wednesday, is rich given it’s Turkey that’s been provocatively sending warships and military jets to accompany illegal gas drilling in the area, something lately condemned by the EU.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Greek islands file image (Lemnos)

    “Greece, arming 16 out of 23 islands with non-military status, in violation of agreements in the Aegean sea, should act in accordance with international law,” said Defense Minister Akar, cited in state-run Anadolu Agency. “We expect Greece to act in line with international law and the agreements it has signed,” he added

    Though becoming increasingly internationally isolated over the drilling issue in EU-member Cyrpus’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Turkey has remained unmoved and at times is positively boastful about it. 

    Not shying away from admitting Turkish maritime claims now stretch from Cypriot waters all the way to Libya (based on a controversial recent maritime boundary ‘deal’ signed with the Tripoli Government of National Accord), Akar further had this to say according to state media

    In addition to the fight against terrorism, Turkey’s activities are ongoing in the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean, off Cyprus, and Libya, Akar said, adding that they are carried out in accordance with international law and the territorial integrity of the countries.

    Turkey is a guarantor country for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and is committed to fulfilling its responsibilities, he said.

    “The Cyprus issue is our national issue. Whatever we need to do there, we’ve done so far and will continue to do so. We will continue to protect the rights of both our own and Cypriot brothers,” he added.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, via Anadolu Agency

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has for the past half-year been sending warships near Cypriot waters in order to ward off foreign competition to oil and gas research, according to Cypriot officials, also seeking to bar Cypriot ships and planes from freely traversing its own European recognized waters. 

    But Erdogan is also bumping up against other Mediterranean countries’ plans in the region — notably Israel and Egypt as well, at a moment he’s engaged in multiple crises both domestic and related to the West  even as Turkey has long sought EU membership.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Greece’s recognized waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (above) vs. Turkey’s proposed and expansive maritime claims (blue, below), with areas it now demands Athens must “demilitarized” in red.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And the above has since extended out to here via deal signed with Tripoli’s GNA:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turkey has in the past demanded that Cyprus formally recognize the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (since 1974) and allow it to share revenues from Cypriot gas exploration. 

    Furthermore Turkey has laid claim to a waters extending a whopping 200 miles from its coast, brazenly asserting ownership over a swathe of the Mediterranean that even cuts into Greece’s exclusive economic zone.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/24/2020 – 01:00

  • They Killed King For The Same Reason They Killed Kennedy
    They Killed King For The Same Reason They Killed Kennedy

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation, we shouldn’t forget that the U.S. national-security establishment — specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI — was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading a communist takeover of the United States.

    This occurred during the Cold War, when Americans were made to believe that there was a gigantic international communist conspiracy to take over the United States and the rest of the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The conspiracy, they said, was centered in Moscow, Russia — yes, that Russia!

    That was, in fact, the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state type of governmental structure after the end of World War II. The argument was that a limited-government republic type of governmental structure, which was the nation’s founding governmental system, was insufficient to prevent a communist takeover of the United States. To prevail over the communists in what was being called a “Cold War,” it would be necessary for the federal government, they said, to become a national-security state so that it could wield the same type of sordid, dark-side, totalitarian-like practices that the communists themselves wielded and exercised.

    The conviction that the communists were coming to get us became so predominant, primarily through official propaganda and indoctrination, especially in the nation’s public (i.e., government) schools, that the matter evolved into mass paranoia. Millions of Americans became convinced that there were communists everywhere. Americans were exhorted to keep a careful watch on everyone else, including their neighbors, and report any suspicious activity, much as Americans today are exhorted to do the same thing with respect to terrorists.

    Some Americans would even look under their beds for communists. Others searched for communists in Congress and within the federal bureaucracies, even the Army, and Hollywood as well. One rightwing group became convinced that even President Eisenhower was an agent of the Soviet government.

    In the midst of all this national paranoia, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the CIA became convinced that King was a communist agent. When King began criticizing U.S. interventionism in Vietnam, that solidified their belief that he was a communist agent. After all, they maintained, wouldn’t any true-blue American patriot rally to his government in time of war, not criticize or condemn it? Only a communist, they believed, would oppose his government when it was committed to killing communists in Vietnam.

    Moreover, when King began advocating for civil rights, especially in the South, that constituted additional evidence, as far as the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon were concerned, that he was, in fact, a communist agent, one whose mission was to foment civil strife in America as a prelude to a communist takeover of America. How else to explain why a black man would be fighting for equal rights for blacks in nation that purported to be free?

    The website kingcenter.org points out:

    After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict saying, “There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband Martin Luther King Jr…. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal governments were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband.”

    And why not? Isn’t it the duty of the U.S. national-security state to eradicate threats to national security? What bigger threat to national security than a person who is supposedly serving as an agent for the communists and also as a spearhead for an international communist conspiracy to take over the United States?

    State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state. As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA’s role in state-sponsored assassinations.

    In 1954, the CIA targeted the democratically elected president of Guatemala for assassination because he was reaching out to Russia in a spirt of peace, friendship, and mutual co-existence. In 1960-61, the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security. In the early 1960s, the CIA , in partnership with the Mafia, the world’s premier criminal organization, conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba, a country that never attacked or invaded the United States. In 1973, the U.S. national-security state orchestrated a coup in Chile, where its counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment conspired to assassinate the democratically elected president of the country, Salvador Allende, by firing missiles at his position in the national palace.

    The mountain of circumstantial evidence that has accumulated since November 1963 has established that foreign officials weren’t the only ones who got targeted as threats to national security. As James W. Douglas documents so well in his remarkable and profound book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, the U.S. national-security establishment also targeted President John F. Kennedy for a state-sponsored assassination as well.

    Why did they target Kennedy?

    For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination — they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national security.

    After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of “defense” contractors and sub-contractors.

    That’s when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace, friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy’s Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy’s fate. That’s also what had sealed the fate of President Arbenz in Guatemala and what would seal the fate of President Allende in Chile. (See FFF’s bestselling book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. Also see FFF’s bestselling book The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger and his recently published The Kennedy Autopsy 2.”)

    But what many people often forget is that one day after his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy delivered a major televised address to the nation defending the civil rights movement, the movement that King was leading.

    What better proof of a threat to national security than that — reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and then, one day later, defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist takeover of the United States?

    The loss of both Kennedy and King constituted conclusive confirmation that the worst mistake in U.S. history was to abandon a limited-government republic type of governmental system in favor of a totalitarian governmental structure known as a national-security state. A free nation does not fight communism with communist tactics and an omnipotent government. A free nation fights communism with freedom and limited government.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is no doubt what both John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about a type of totalitarian-like governmental structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression, coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change operations, and massive death, suffering, and destruction, not to mention the loss of liberty and privacy here at home.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 23:45

    Tags

  • The Future We Deserve: Your App-Enabled Dildo Or Butt Plug Could Be Spying On You
    The Future We Deserve: Your App-Enabled Dildo Or Butt Plug Could Be Spying On You

    Modern times come with modern problems, undoubtedly. 

    And look no further for proof of that than a recent C|Net write up detailing how some internet enabled sex toy manufacturers may not be taking privacy as seriously as one might like – especially given the sensitive nature of the types of data it is collecting.

    And enabled sex toys are big business. In November of last year, we highlighted how one Nevada brothel was using sex robots and internet-enabled toys to help “satisfy” its customers. 

    Sex was on full display at the CES in Las Vegas last week, with all types of internet enabled toys on display. Almost all of these toys connect to apps, which then, in turn, collect data. There are apps that monitor orgasms, save vibration patterns and let you connect with your long-distance partner’s toy. 

    And while some in the industry are taking security seriously, the rest of the products are “all over the map”, according to Nicole Schwartz, a researcher for Internet of Dongs (yes, that is actually her company’s name). 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    She said: “Two out of three of these companies are not conscientious about security. The ones you are going to see at CES are obviously a little more tech-minded, so you’re seeing a particularly biased section of the market.” 

    Back in 2016, when the industry was still budding, Brad Haines founded Internet of Dongs after discovering just how bad security was for sex-toy apps. “It was rather terrifying at the beginning, just how bad it was, This was an industry that never had to deal with connectivity before. There’s no one around to say, ‘That doesn’t seem like a good idea,'” he said.

    The device isn’t so much the issue – the app software is where compromises are “more likely” to happen, he notes.

    And it isn’t just software that can be compromised that users have to worry about, it’s companies’ misuse of their data. One company, Hong Kong-based Hytto, was accused of “secretly stor[ing] and monitor[ing] the personal data of users of its Lush vibrator — including the time and date of use — without their consent.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The company’s chief marketing officer responded: “We don’t sell our users’ data, and we only use it for customer service issues, and we wipe those logs regularly.”

    We bet you do. 

    Soum Rakshit, CEO of another internet enabled sex toy company, MysteryVibe said: “We have no profiles, because we strongly believe nothing is unhackable. A lot of people spend months debating the color of a product. If we can give security the same level of design importance, then we won’t have to worry about it later. The biggest selling point is it saves you time and money if you do it in the beginning.” 

    Internet of Dongs researcher Schwartz offered several things you can do if you’re in the market for a toy and want to do your research: “Check their website and see — do they require you to create an account? Do they talk about security? Are they specific at all — do they say things like ‘We encrypt everything’?” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The consequences of playing it fast and loose (no pun intended) with data are real. They led sex tech company We-Vibe into a lawsuit that ultimately cost them $3.75 million in 2016. 

    And this isn’t the only risk that internet-enabled sex toy owners take on. Last September, we also wrote about criminals were hacking these devices and sexually assaulting people using them.

    Welcome to the future we all deserve. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 23:25

  • The American Chaos Machine – Mad Policies For A Mad World
    The American Chaos Machine – Mad Policies For A Mad World

    Authored by US Army Major (ret.) Danny Sjursen, via TomDispatch.com,

    In March 1906, on the heels of the U.S. Army’s massacre of some 1,000 men, women, and children in the crater of a volcano in the American-occupied Philippines, humorist Mark Twain took his criticism public. A long-time anti-imperialist, he flippantly suggested that Old Glory should be redesigned “with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones.”

    I got to thinking about that recently, five years after I became an antiwar dissenter (while still a major in the U.S. Army), and in the wake of another near-war, this time with Iran. I was struck yet again by the way every single U.S. military intervention in the Greater Middle East since 9/11 has backfired in wildly counterproductive ways, destabilizing a vast expanse of the planet stretching from West Africa to South Asia.

    Chaos, it seems, is now Washington’s stock-in-trade. Perhaps, then, it’s time to resurrect Twain’s comment – only today maybe those stars on our flag should be replaced with the universal symbol for chaos.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After all, our present administration, however unhinged, hardly launched this madness. President Trump’s rash, risky, and repugnant decision to assassinate Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani on the sovereign soil of Iraq was only the latest version of what has proven to be a pervasive state of affairs. Still, that and Trump’s other recent escalations in the region do illustrate an American chaos machine that’s gone off the rails. And the very manner — I’m loathe to call it a “process” — by which it’s happened just demonstrates the way this president has taken American chaos to its dark but logical conclusion.

    The Goldilocks Method

    Any military officer worth his salt knows full well the importance of understanding the basic psychology of your commander. President George W. Bush liked to call himself “the decider,” an apt term for any commander. Senior leaders don’t, as a rule, actually do that much work in the traditional sense. Rather, they hobnob with superiors, buck up unit morale, evaluate and mentor subordinates, and above all make key decisions. It’s the operations staff officers who analyze problems, present options, and do the detailed planning once the boss blesses or signs off on a particular course of action. 

    Though they may toil thanklessly in the shadows, however, those staffers possess immense power to potentially circumscribe the range of available options and so influence the future mission. In other words, to be a deft operations officer, you need to know your commander’s mind, be able translate his sparse guidance, and frame his eventual choice in such a manner that the boss leaves a “decision briefing” convinced the plan was his own. Believe me, this is the actual language military lifers use to describe the tortured process of decision-making.

    In 2009, as a young captain, fresh out of Baghdad, Iraq, I spent two unfulfilling, if instructive, years enmeshed in exactly this sort of planning system. As a battalion-level planner, then assistant, and finally a primary operations officer, I observed this cycle countless times. So allow me to take you “under the hood” for some inside baseball. I — and just about every new staff officer — was taught to always provide the boss with three plans, but to suss out ahead of time which one he’d choose (and, above all, which one you wanted him to choose). 

    Confident in your ability to frame his choices persuasively, you’d often even direct your staffers to begin writing up the full operations order before the boss’s briefing took place. The key to success was what some labeled the Goldilocks method. You’d always present your commander with a too-cautious option, a too-risky option, and a “just-right” course of action. It nearly always worked. 

    I did this under the command of two very different lieutenant colonels. The first was rational, ethical, empathetic, and tactically competent. He made mission planning easy on his staff. He knew the game as well as we did and only pretended to be fooled. He built relationships with his senior operations officers over the course of months, thereby revealing his preferred methods, tactical predilections, and even personal learning style. Then he’d give just enough initial guidance — far more than most commanders — to set his staff going in a reasonably focused fashion.

    Unfortunately, that consummate professional moved on to bigger things and his replacement was a sociopath who gave vague, often conflicting guidance, oozed insecurity in briefings, and had a disturbing penchant for choosing the most radical (read: foolhardy) option around. Sound familiar? It should! 

    Still, military professionals are coached to adapt and improvise and so we did. As a staff we worked to limit his range of options by reverse-ordering the choices we presented him or even lying about nonexistent logistical limitations to stop him from doing the truly horrific. 

    And as recent events remind us, such exercises play out remarkably similarly, no matter whether you’re dealing at a battalion level (perhaps 400 to 700 troops) or that of this country’s commander-in-chief (more than two million uniformed service personnel). The behind-the-scenes war-gaming of the boss, the entire calculus, remains the same, whether the options are ultimately presented by a captain (me, then) or — as in the recent decision to assassinate Iranian Major General Suleimani — Mark Milley, the four-star general at the helm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Soon after President Trump’s egregious, a-strategic, dubiously legal, unilateral execution of a uniformed leader of a sovereign country, reports surfaced describing his convoluted decision-making process. Perhaps predictably, it appears that The Donald took his military staff by surprise and chose the most extreme measure they presented him with — assassinating a foreign military figure. Honestly, that this president did so should have surprised no one. That, according to a report in the New York Times, his generals were indeed surprised strikes me as basic dereliction of duty (especially given that, seven months earlier, Trump had essentially given the green light to such a future assassination — the deepest desire, by the way, of both his secretary of state and his then-national security advisor, John Bolton). 

    At this point in their careers, having played out such processes at every possible level for at least 30 years, his generals ought to have known their boss better, toiled valiantly to temper his worst instincts, assumed he might choose the most extreme measure offered and, when he did so, publicly resigned before potentially relegating their soldiers to a hopeless new conflict. That they didn’t, particularly that the lead briefer Milley didn’t, is just further proof that, 18-plus years after our latest round of wars began, such senior leaders lack both competence and integrity.

    Bush, Obama, and the Chaos Machine’s Tragic Foundations

    The current commander-in-chief could never have expanded America’s wars in the Greater Middle East (contra his campaign promises) or unilaterally drone-assassinated a foreign leader, without the militaristic foundations laid down for him by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. So it’s vital to review, however briefly, the chaotic precedents to the rule of Donald Trump. 

    Guided by a coterie of neoconservative zealots, Bush the Younger committed the nation to the “original sin” of expansive, largely unsanctioned wars as his chosen response to the 9/11 attacks. It was his team that would write the playbook on selling an ill-advised, illegal invasion of Iraq based on bad intelligence and false pretenses. He also escalated tensions with Iran to the brink of war by including the Islamic Republic in an imaginary “axis of evil” (with Iraq and North Korea) after invading first one of its neighbors, Afghanistan, and then the other, Iraq, while imposing sanctions, which froze the assets of Iranians allegedly connected to that country’s nuclear program. He ushered in the use of torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, illegal domestic mass surveillance, and drone attacks over the sovereign airspace of other countries — then lied about it all. That neither Congress, nor the courts, nor his successor held him (or anyone else) accountable for such decisions set a dangerous new standard for foreign policy.

    Barack Obama promised “hope and change,” a refreshing (if vague) alternative to the sins of the Bush years. The very abstraction of that slogan, however, allowed his supporters to project their own wants, needs, and preferred policies onto the future Obama experiment. So perhaps none of us ought to have been as surprised as many of us were when, despite slowly pulling troops out of Iraq, he only escalated the Afghan War, continued the forever wars in general (even returning to Iraq in 2014), and set his own perilous precedents along the way.

    It was, after all, Obama who, as an alternative to large-scale military occupations, took Bush’s drone program and ran with it. He would be the first president to truly earn the sobriquet “assassin-in-chief.” He made selecting individuals for assassination in “Terror Tuesday” meetings at the White House banal and put his stamp of approval on the drone campaigns across significant parts of the planet that followed — even killing American citizens without due process. Encouraged by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he also launched a new regime-change war in Libya, turning that land into a failed state filled with terror groups, a decision which, he later admitted, added up to a “shit show.” After vacillating for a couple years, he also mired the U.S., however indirectly, in the Syrian civil war, empowering Islamist factions there and worsening that already staggering humanitarian catastrophe.

    In response to the sudden explosion of the Islamic State — an al-Qaeda offshoot first catalyzed by the Bush invasion of Iraq and actually formed in an American prison in that country — its taking of key Iraqi cities and smashing of the American-trained Iraqi army, Obama loosed U.S. air power on them and sent American troops back into that country. He also greatly expanded his predecessor’s nascent military interventions across the African continent. There, too, the results were largely tragic and counterproductive as ethnic militias and Islamic terror groups have spread widely and civil warfare has exploded

    Finally, it was Obama who first sanctioned, supported, and enabled the Saudi terror bombing of Yemen, which, even now, remains perhaps the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. So it is that, from Mali to Libya, Syria to Afghanistan, every one of Bush’s and Obama’s military forays has sowed further chaos, startling body counts, and increased rates of terrorism. It’s those policies, those results, and the military toolbox that went with them that Donald J. Trump inherited in January 2017.

    The Trumpian Perfect Storm

    During the climax to the American phase of a 30-year war in Vietnam, newly elected President Richard Nixon, a well-established Republican cold warrior, developed what he dubbed the “madman theory for bringing the intractable U.S. intervention there to a face-saving conclusion. The president’s chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, recalled Nixon telling him:

    “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button’ and [North Vietnamese leader] Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.”

    It didn’t work, of course. Nixon escalated and expanded the war. He briefly invaded neighboring Cambodia and Laos, secretly (and illegally) bombed both countries, and ramped up air strikes on North Vietnam. Apart from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocents, however, none of this had a notable effect on the ultimate outcome. The North Vietnamese called his bluff, extending the war long enough to force an outright American withdrawal less than four years later. Washington lost in Southeast Asia, just as today it’s losing in the Greater Middle East.

    So it was, with the necessary foundations of militarism and hyper-interventionism in place, that Donald Trump entered the White House, at times seemingly intent on testing out his own personal “fire and fury” version of the madman theory. Indeed, his more irrational and provocative foreign policy incitements, including pulling out of the Paris climate accords, spiking a working nuclear deal with Iran, existentially threatening North Korea, seizing Syrian oil fields, sending yet more military personnel into the Persian Gulf region, and most recently assassinating a foreign leader seem right out of some madman instruction manual. And just like Nixon’s stillborn escalations, Trump’s most absurd moves also seem bound to fail.

    Take the Suleimani execution as a case in point. An outright regional war has (so far) been avoided, thanks not to the “deal-making” skills of that self-styled “stable genius” in the White House but to Iran’s long history of restraint. As retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, recently put it: “The leadership in Tehran is far more rational than the leadership in Washington.” 

    In fact, Trump’s unprecedented assassination order backfired at every level. He even managed briefly to unite a divided Iranian nation, caused the Iraqi government to demand a full U.S. troop withdrawal from that country, convinced Iran to end its commitment to restrain its enrichment of uranium, and undoubtedly incentivized both Tehran and Pyongyang not to commit to, or abide by, any future nuclear deals with Washington.

    If George W. Bush and Barack Obama sowed the seeds of the American chaos machine, Donald Trump represents the first true madman at the wheel of state, thanks to his volatile temperament, profound ignorance, and crippling insecurity.

    The Rapture as Foreign Policy

    All of which raises another disturbing question: What if this administration’s chaos-sowing proves an end in itself, one that coheres with the millenarian fantasies of sections of the Republican Christian Right? After all, several key figures on the Trump team — notably Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence — explicitly view the Middle East as evangelical Christians. Like a disturbing 73% of evangelicals (or 20% of the U.S. population), Pompeo and Pence believe that the Rapture (that is, the prophesied Christian end of the world) is likely to unfold in this generation and that a contemporary conflict in Israel and an impending war with Iran might actually be trigger events ushering in just such an apocalypse.  

    Donald Trump is, by all indications, far too self-serving, self-absorbed, and cynical to adhere to the eschatological blind-faith of the two Mikes. He clearly believes only in Donald Trump. And yet what a terrible irony it would be if, due to his perfect-storm disposition, he unwittingly ends up playing the role of the very Antichrist those evangelicals believe necessary to usher in end-times.

    Given the foundations set in place for Trump by George W. Bush and Barack Obama and his capacity to throw caution to the wind, it’s hard to imagine a better candidate to play that role.

    *  *  *

    Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular, is a retired U.S. Army major and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now lives in Lawrence, Kansas. He has written a memoir of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet and check out his podcast “Fortress on a Hill,” co-hosted with fellow vets Chris Henriksen and Keegan Ryan Miller. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 23:05

  • Vail Resorts Season-To-Date Skier Visits Plunge 7.8%
    Vail Resorts Season-To-Date Skier Visits Plunge 7.8%

    Maybe the consumer is too broke to ski this year? 

    A day at Vail Resorts, that is, if you rent skis and purchase a lift ticket, could cost upwards of $300 per day. And that doesn’t include lodging! 

    All said and done, a heavily indebted consumer, or let’s say a broke millennial, could spend upwards of $500 per day on ski rental, lift ticket, and lodging (ex. food expenses). 

    A typical visit to Vail isn’t just one day but rather a weekend trip. So, the consumer might spend upwards of $1,500 – all charged to their credit cards with an average rate of 17%

    The consumer has had to make some tough choices at the start of the 2020 ski season – it comes down to debt servicing payments, like student debt, auto loans, and credit cards, or experience a weekend at Vail. The holiday hangover, where consumers loaded up their credit cards with holiday purchases, might be another reason why they can’t afford to ski. The exact causes are unknown.  

    Vail Resorts reported Friday that the ski season, which started on January 05, was off to a very slow start compared to the beginning of last season. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Season-to-date skier visits were down 7.8% compared with the first several weeks of the opening ski season last year. 

    The report said season-to-date lift ticket revenue was up 0.40% over the same period. 

    Ski school revenue was up 2%, and dining revenue was down 3% over the first several weeks compared to last year.

    Retail/rental revenue for North American resorts and ski area store locations was also down 1.8%. 

    Commenting on the start of a possible disastrous ski season is Rob Katz, Chief Executive Officer, who said: 

    “Relative to the strong conditions in the prior year, the 2019/2020 North American ski season got off to a slower start, impacting both our local and destination guest visitation in the pre-holiday period through December 19, 2019.

    “Given the strong conditions last year, the initial guidance for the fiscal year 2020 incorporated the possibility of a slower start to the season.”

    So if it’s a $300 to $500 per day or upwards of $1,500 for the weekend for a Vail trip, does the broke consumer really have that much to spend? So far, the answer to the question at the start of the season is no. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 22:45

  • The Debate Is Over: In Two Months "Not QE" Officially Becomes QE 4
    The Debate Is Over: In Two Months “Not QE” Officially Becomes QE 4

    While Neel Kashkari may be theatrically appealing to the intellect of “QE conspiracists” – which as of today in addition to Robert Kaplan, Larry Kudlow and James Gorman also includes as per the chart below Bank of America, in addition to any other person with an even modest understanding of monetary policy…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … to explain to him how the Fed is moving prices with its $60BN in monthly purchases of T-Bills (something we did last week), an key development is coming that will make all such debates moot: in a few months the Fed’s “Not QE” will officially become “QE 4.”

    The reason: following an update to BMO’s bill supply forecasts, the bank’s rates strategist Jon Hill sees a great likelihood that the Fed will need to reduce its “demand burden” on the bill market, i.e., there won’t be enough Bills available for the Fed to monetize without it distorting the market, and will extend the purchase program to include short coupons in the process officially ending any debate whether the Fed’s manipulation of the market under the guise of saving repo, is “Not QE”, because it is limited to Bills and thus no duration is taken out of the market, or is “QE 4”, in which the Fed purchases at least some coupon securities in addition to Bills.

    Once the Fed makes the shift, BMO expects the monthly sizes of $60 bn, or $30 bn post assumed taper, would be composed of both bills and short coupons, “helping to reduce expected pressure in the bill market. “

    At this point, Hill puts 75% odds on this change occurring by mid-March, meaning that any farcical “debate” whether the Fed’s injection of anywhere between $60 and $100BN in liquidity each month into the equity market, is or isn’t QE, will very soon be mercifully over.

    What if BMO is wrong, and the Fed does not adjust purchases to include short coups? In that case, the Canadian banks foresees a $321 billion reduction in bill supply in Q2 2020

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … which would be the largest quarterly drop in privately available outstandings on record.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Furthermore, Hill predicts that that the Treasury’s introduction of 20-year supply would also marginally contribute to reduced Q2 bill issuance.

    This squeeze is driven more by the Fed’s purchase program, rather than a sudden shift in the Treasury Department’s cash needs. Indeed, a look at borrowing needs less net coupon issuance shows Q2 2020 will be -$236 bn, essentially in line with -$229 bn in Q2 2019. In other words, what makes Q2 2020 different is the full consequences of the Fed’s footprint in the bill market.

    It is also worth noting that that these figures reflect BMO’s assumption that the Fed tapers their “reserve management program” (and soon, QE-4) from $60 billion per month to $30 billion per month in mid-March, so if the tapering does not occur, the squeeze will be that much more.

    Now, “why doesn’t the Fed stop their Bill (and soon Note) Purchases earlier?” one may ask? The short answer, according to Hill, is that the system still requires reserve injections – after all anything less and the equity market will crack – and the Fed wants to gradually reduce its repo footprint. While repo take-up from the Fed has fallen by $80 bn since year-end, there remains nearly $200 bn in demand. Since the beginning of December, the combined reserve management purchases plus repo injections has been approximately $400 bn.

    As a result, in BMO’s baseline scenario, the bill purchase program will total $390BN by the time it is unwound (before it returns again, of course). This will continue to displace demand for Fed repo operations, but not at a sufficient pace as to allow for a full stop of the reserve management purchases before Q2. Instead, and as we predicted last October, the most prudent policy adjustment per Hill, appears to be expanding the program to include short coupons in the next couple months

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One key question which may be asked by all those who still don’t get the nuance of the debate among the “Not QE” and “QE” crowd, is “what’s the hesitation for the Fed buying coupons in addition to bills?”

    The answer is simple: by focusing only on T-bill purchases, the Fed was given a semantic loophole, and was able to fall back on Powell’s October 2019 vow that “in no sense is this QE”, since it’s easier to make the argument because it does not directly drive long-end yields down (of course, as we explained the mere continued injection of up to $100BN in liquidity each month is all the market cares about). This would also be the case if they only purchased coupons maturing in one year
    or less.

    The second reason why the Fed is reluctant to expand purchases to include short coupons is the way they have signaled their reaction function on the topic. According to BMO, “in the current framework, it appears that they would need to actually observe liquidity impairment in bills before tweaking the program details.” One reason not mentioned by BMO is that with the Fed officially set to transition to QE, it will no longer be possible for Powell to evade a discussion over the new round of monetary easing – i.e., QE4 – and the cascade of question why this is happening when unemployment is 3.5%,  when wage growth is 3.0%, and when the US economy is nowhere near a crisis like the one that launched the original QE. Unless, of course, the US is very near a crisis, and the Fed knows much more than it is letting on…

    The last question: “If the Fed pivoted to short coupons, when would they announce the change?”

    In terms of timing, the focus on disconnecting the reserve management purchases from true monetary policy makes
    it unlikely (though not impossible) that the announcement would come at an FOMC meeting. Instead, our focus will
    be on the upcoming operational announcements – the next one is February 13 at 3:00 PM ET.
    If the FOMC wanted to signal that a pivot into short coupons was imminent, we see two primary avenues: Powell’s
    press conference on January 29 (he’s sure to receive a question or two on the topic) and the January meeting Minutes
    which will be released on February 19.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 22:25

  • General Dynamics Releases New Video Of Its Next-Generation Assault Rifle
    General Dynamics Releases New Video Of Its Next-Generation Assault Rifle

    General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics, tweeted a new video of its next-generation assault rifle. 

    Defense Blog said General Dynamics is developing the weapon for the Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon – Automatic Rifle (NGSR-AR) program. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The NGSR-AR is expected to replace the M249 squad automatic weapon, while the NGSW-R (Rifle) will replace M4 carbine. 

    NGSR-AR and NGSW-R are expected to replace the current field weapons in the next several years. 

    These new weapons are expected to include “sophisticated technologies such as ballistic calculation, intelligent targeting and tracking capabilities, wireless communication and advanced camera-based capabilities,” said Defense Blog. 

    We’ve noted before, NGSR-AR and NGSW-R’s firepower will be able to shoot at much greater distances, able to penetrate the world’s most advanced body armor. The weapons are expected to be lightweight and have reduced acoustic and flash signature.

    Last week, the Special Operation Command (USSOCOM) granted Sig Sauer a safety certification for its new MG 338 Machine Gun, 338 Norma Mag Ammunition, and Next Generation Suppressors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last year, Textron Systems’ AAI Corporation delivered its next-generation machine gun to the Army that chambers a telescoped round between 6.5mm and 6.8mm and is expected to be another weapon that could replace either the M249 or M4 carbine. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Pentagon, flush with new cash from President Trump’s $2 trillion military spending spree, is expected to fully outfit combat troops with next-generation weapons in the next 2-4 years. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 22:05

  • $180 Billion Asset Manager: "There Is No Way Out, Fed Policies Can No Longer Be Exited Without Provoking The Next Crisis"
    $180 Billion Asset Manager: “There Is No Way Out, Fed Policies Can No Longer Be Exited Without Provoking The Next Crisis”

    When just over three years ago, TCW’s Chief Investment Officer in Fixed Income, Tad Rivelle, who oversees roughly $180BN in assets, or more than Jeff Gundlach, stated that we are now living through the third consecutive asset bubble in a row, “the central bankers’ bubble” which followed the dot com and housing bubbles…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … he naturally caused a stir as back then he was still one of the first established professionals to confirm and admit that this particular “tinfoil conspiracy theory” website had been right all along: the market’s performance was entirely due to the Fed, and that the longer the Fed’s “emergency” measures continued, the more locked in the central bank would be as the reverse process, namely price discovery without Fed intervention, would result in a catastrophic crisis that could even lead to global war.

    A few years later, Tad Rivelle’s then shocking report would have barely registered, as it is now common knowledge that every single market is distorted beyond comprehension due to Fed policies (with a handful of idiots still pretending that’s not true), and while everyone knows that continued central bank intervention will only make the ensuing final crash that much greater, nobody has any idea how to detach the Fed from capital markets.

    Which brings us to Rivelle’s latest note, which while far less controversial this time, still manages to hit the nail on the head with punchlines which once again excoriates the “free market” for becoming more centrally planned than the USSR had ever hoped to become.

    We urge everyone to read it.

    * * *

    The Fed Continues to Continue to Pretend

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>In his seminal work, The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam wrote how rather than being dazzled by the extraordinary resumes of the Kennedy cabinet, then Vice President Johnson remarked he’d feel a whole lot better had just a single one of them ever run for something practical, such as local sheriff. There is no denying the erudition of the modern central banker, but practically speaking, a decade and more has passed since the financial crisis, and crisis era policies are not only still with us – they have been expanded. The $60 billion per month that the Fed is now purchasing for its balance sheet is a new record rate of asset accumulation. It’s no denying: QE played a pivotal role in the bull market in everything. Yet, virtually everyone, everywhere sees the conundrum: growth fostered by rising leverage can never be sustainable. And yet, unsustainable monetary policy continues for the simple reason that ending it would bring consequences that no one can accept.

    The intended consequences of the last decade’s worth of Fed policies are obvious for all to behold. It is the unintended consequences, those that undermine the sustainability of the current asset price regime that are of most interest here.

    In the land that monetary policy forgot, when a worker worked, he received his paycheck, from which he freely consumed. Any surplus – or savings – was added to his pool of “loanable funds” which would then be auctioned out to a willing “bidder,” say a bank, a mutual fund, or a rental income opportunity. But when the 2008 crisis hit, market clearing levels for loanable funds were exorbitant. Credit was priced out of reach for all but the most pristine (prudent) borrowers, asset prices were in free fall, and a financial system that had built an excess of leverage was at risk of implosion.

    So it was with the best of intentions, the Fed initiated a suite of policies that included QE. Technocratic justifications aside, QE enabled the “printing” of new loanable funds. Unlike the worker who had to provide something of value in exchange for receipt of his loanable funds, the Fed simply conjured new funds from the electronic ether, thereby massively diluting the existing private sector pool of loanable funds. Predictably, bank deposit rates tanked, credit spreads tightened and cap rates were yanked downwards.

    Of course, an asset price inflation spurred on by an expansion of credit is exactly what Dr. Bernanke initially ordered up, though you may recall that he never intended the artificial expansion in loanable funds to be a permanent policy. That all changed with the 2013 “taper tantrum” and was reinforced by the 2018 abortive attempt by the Powell Fed to “normalize” rates and balance sheet so slowly that it was supposed to be like watching “paint dry.” Policies implemented as a response to crisis now can’t be exited without provoking the next crisis.

    Monetary policies have long since become more problem than solution. This ought not to be such a surprise as the supply side of any economy will invariably configure itself to meet its demand side. And those activities spurred by artificially cheap credit will disappear once that credit is repriced. Raising rates and normalizing the Fed’s balance sheet would now be tantamount to pulling the pegs out from the bottom of the Jenga tower. Fundamentally, you can’t exit a Potemkin economy without forcing changes in the kind and quantities of demand. But, that, of course, would force the supply side to adjust. In other words, we’d have recession.

    Exhibit 1: Fed Policies Have Lifted P/E Multiples, Yet Aggregate Profits Have Stagnated

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    * NIPA pretax profits for U.S. companies adjusted for inventory valuation (IVA) and capital consumption (CC Adj.)
    Source: BEA, Bloomberg, IMF, national central banks, TCW

    Absent a crisis, faith in the power of monetary tools to foster a healthy configuration of labor and capital has long been severely misplaced. But market forces are powerful precisely because they are rooted in practical realities. Economics is always about the management of scarcity and while expansions in the supply of credit may shift who gets to buy what resources from whom and when, the plain fact is that a scarce commodity remains so regardless of whether interest rates are high or low. While we may be glossing over notions of relative scarcity versus absolute scarcity, an approachable example, say the supply of oceanfront homes, can serve to illustrate the point.

    In the example, market forces must necessarily balance the number of people who can buy oceanfront real estate to match the scarcity of oceanfront homes. These constraints can and do, at different times, take the form of high mortgage rates, home price, or loan underwriting standards. And if sales of oceanfront homes were languishing for some reason, the Fed could “stimulate” activity by lowering mortgage rates.

    Yet while the Fed can print new loanable funds it can’t add to the supply of oceanfront real estate. So when access to such real estate is no longer limited by say high mortgage rates, home prices will necessarily rise so that a proper rationing mechanism remains in place for the scarce commodity. Indeed, is this not an apt metaphor for what has happened to the price of much U.S. real estate across many metropolitan areas?

    While a card carrying Keynesian would point out that rising real estate prices is “obviously” stimulative because higher prices spur such activities as home improvement adding revenue to the construction trades, one has to wonder: an instructive critique of this way of thinking can be found in the entertaining 19th century treatise by Bastiat on the fallacy of the “broken window.” Wherever you might come down on the argument, the basic point is that trying to fool Mr. Market works about as well as trying to fool Mother Nature. If monetary policy were the key to an earthly prosperity, surely all nations would have bootstrapped themselves by the simple artifice of helicopter money.

    Indeed, rather than igniting an economic boom, cheap and abundant credit have, instead, fostered an elevation in asset prices relative to fundamentals. For instance, enterprise profits for corporate America have gone more or less nowhere for five years (Exhibit 1), but through the magic of share repurchases, higher EPS has helped lift stock prices. In a similar vein, covenant lite loans have enabled private equity to purchase businesses at high multiples all the while retaining an abundance of optionality vis-à-vis the loan/noteholder that has been unprecedented. In short, the right side of the corporate balance sheet can be profoundly altered by central bank policy, but long-term growth is a function of businesses operating more effectively, a reality that shows itself not on the right but rather on the left side of the balance sheet. Operational improvements work best when the incentives to do so are market based – not when credit is artificially cheap.

    Exhibit 2: Covenant-Lite Loans As % of All Newly Issued Institutional Loans

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: LCD, S&P Global Market Intelligence

    And, this brings us full circle to the reality of the past decade: credit binges are always popular because while the benefits of leverage come today, the costs of bad debt come tomorrow. Improving a business or learning a skill requires dedication and hard work. Monetary “stimulus” offers a siren like promise of effortless prosperity yet ignores the reality that credit binges always sow the seeds of their future destruction.

    If this sounds a tad abstract, consider September 15 last. On that day, the normally dull as dishwater overnight repo lending rate soared to an astonishing 10% annualized rate. A shocked Fed felt compelled to “do something,” which these days invariably means adding still further to the pool of loanable funds. The size of the add (via the Fed’s T-bill purchases and expansion of its repo facility) has been nearly a cool half-trillion, well over half of the total size of the Fed’s pre-crisis balance sheet. The Fed justified adding this tidal wave of liquidity notwithstanding its characterization that what happened was a mere “technical” glitch in the repo market. Technical, really? A practical take is that the market is talking to the best and brightest minds in central banking, and the Fed doesn’t like what it’s hearing: the repo market wants to clear at rates above the Fed’s IOER fiat rate, which, if allowed to do so, would likely invert the front-end of the yield curve. Inverting curves sounds a bit too much like ending a credit binge, leading to recession, and so the Fed’s response function is to “veto” (Latin for “I forbid”) the market’s signal. Now, who’s fooling whom?

    And, so the Fed continues to continue to pretend the cycle need never end. But markets will be what they must be, and investors must face the consequences of the last decade’s credit binge…tomorrow.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 21:45

  • Audio: Harvey Weinstein Threatens Actress Over Massage; Accuser Breaks Down In Tears For 'Letting Him Rape Her'
    Audio: Harvey Weinstein Threatens Actress Over Massage; Accuser Breaks Down In Tears For ‘Letting Him Rape Her’

    Journalist Ronan Farrow has released an audio recording of Harvey Weinstein threatening actress Amber Guttierez with missing out on ‘big opportunities’ if she didn’t trust her and do “relaxing things” with him such as “Massages” and “something fun,” that her career would suffer.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “If you want to spend time with me I will mentor you, I will teach you or whatever but you have to, you know, relax with me, have fun, enjoy,” Weinstein can be heard on the covert recording used in a failed 2015 sting orchestrated by the NYPD.

    “What things?” asks Guttierez.

    “Nothing, just relaxing things. Massages, something fun,” Weinstein replies.

    After the back-and-forth continues, the disgraced movie mogul says “If you do not trust me, then we have no reason to do anything and you will lose big opportunities.”

    In a second recording, Weinstein accuser Lucia Evans describes how she allowed Weinstein to overpower her – recalling ‘giving up’ in a 2004 incident at his Miramax office in Tribeca.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “I tried to struggle away but he’s a big guy, you know?” Evans told Farrow when she called him before the journalist released his bombshell report on Weinstein.

    “So he overpowered me but I don’t know if I, along the process, I think I just sort of gave up,” she added, while breaking into tears.

    “Right? Like that’s where I feel like… if he 1000 percent forced me and I was like screaming and like fighting him to the death I would feel like a little more proud of this whole situation but I think.”

    Weinstein will return to court in Manhattan on Tuesday for his ongoing trial for five counts of sexual assault. If convicted on all of them, he faces life in prison.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 21:25

  • China's Cultural "Group-Think" Is Worth Exploring
    China’s Cultural “Group-Think” Is Worth Exploring

    Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

    For decades China has been pushing its people towards a more “homogeneous way of thinking.” This article is focused on exploring some of the cultural “group-think” countries tend to breed into their population. This is especially true in a country like China where the controlling party assumes the role of plotting society’s course “for the greater good.” I’m very concerned that governments across the world will up their game when it comes to shaping public opinion. Across the world, all the new technology available is rapidly tightening the noose around the neck of individual thought.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s Cultural And “Group Think”

    Reducing political descent was a core principle of the cultural revolution led by Mao Tse-tung. The Red Guards formed by his youthful followers conducted a mass purge of the “undesirables.” They then went on to send the young intellectuals living in the cities into the countryside to be “re-educated” through hard manual labor. This is an example of how propaganda can turn a population to a single focus and direction which causes its members can march in lockstep. With this in mind, it has only been in the last couple of  years that the narrative of China being a threat to America has been bantered about. Before that America was busy patting itself on its back for bringing a backward China into the modern world.

    Recently a person commenting on another article wrote;

    I have worked in China several times over the years and the rate of change has been incredible. In 1976, state store shelves were nearly empty, later, huge multistory department stores were packed with Western-style goods and customers. But, the people were not totally happy. The Chinese have been described as bandits with a thin patina of civilization.  They are as greedy as the West used to be for social progress.

    Younger Americans seem to seek after this Chinese ‘miracle,’ thinking that Communism is responsible for the wealth increase.  In reality, it is Communism with a capitalist bent. When this slows down we will be “equal.”  Then America will follow China back to individualism and populism as was common in an earlier China and the West.

    This person may or may not have a good grasp of where things are headed. With this in mind, trying to understand and learn about different cultures is important. The world is at a place in its development where individuals may soon lose their ability to influence the path forward. This means our future is becoming more concentrated in the hands of a few. These elite have assumed the role of leading and shaping society. The problem with this is these so-called leaders will most likely be quick to place their best interest solidly in front of those they govern.

    We get a rather different view of China and its people from these videos posted online from two young well-grounded fellas that have lived there for a while. It is a bit different from what has been portrayed over the last few decades by mainstream media. Below are a slew of their videos currently on YouTube. In their videos, they give their take on the area from a boots on the ground perspective rather than an economist view from an ivory tower. This means they seem to look at the Chinese and its current culture from the bottom up rather than the top down. I highly recommend this “ADVChina” series. It is more or less an Adventure Travel show on motorbikes, while it may not be super polished, it is real.

    * This video gives their take on China’s lack of interest and sensitivity to other cultures. 

    * China has a phrase, and it’s “mei ban fa”. You will hear this everywhere you go. Can you fix this? This is very important in understanding the Chinese “no solution I don’t care attitude.”

    * In this video, the guys give their take on China’s “Belt and Road” initiative which they see as problematic and declare it will be a failure.

    * Ghost City-Inside The China Housing Bubble (very important-7 minutes in) they explain this deck of cards. If you listen closely you can almost hear the empty buildings deteriorating in the distance.

    * Living in Japan versus China

    * The secrets of Chinese HOTELS

    * Collectivism vs. Individualism is a major mental block for people in different countries. They discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both and why China will beat America

    * The fellas talk about China’s dystopian social credit system which we have heard so much about.

    Without a doubt, China is far less polarized and divided than America where people seem unable to agree on much of anything. The Chinese people, however, appear far more accepting and less willing to take responsibility for much of anything. Individuality runs strong in the human animal, there are pros and cons about the fact we can agree on so little. This is why so many people desire to create a homogeneous society. This is perhaps the most ancient, universal, and subconscious goal that leaders have sought to achieve. This idea stands as a utopian goal where humanity can flourish without strife and conflict.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Forced group-think is evident in how China treats the millions of its citizens that do not make an effort to march in step. It is also why many Americans recoil at the thought of it happening here. The ruling Communist Party in China has built “re-education camps” in an attempt to bring these people into the “modern, civilized” world promote what the government calls “ethnic unity” but in simpler terms, the apparent goal is to force detainees to embrace the Chinese communist party and an effort to fully control the hearts and minds of its population. Much of this is aimed at the ethnic minorities of Uighurs in the western region of Xinjiang.

    China’s Great Fire Wall which is considered the largest, most extensive and most advanced Internet censorship regime in the world censors content critical of the Chinese government or contrary to Communist Party policy is key to this suppression. Another is that people simply “disappear” in China and their families are left with little or no information as to where they have gone. The term “group-think” is sometimes associated with George Orwell. He wrote about how the power of groupthink tends to be infectious. Shades of this are exposed in the videos.  I contend that China’s culture suffers from a kind of deteriorating mental efficiency. This includes a reduced ability to deal with reality and moral judgments due to in-group pressures to think as one.

    It is becoming clear the desire for achieving harmony, conformity, and cohesiveness through group-think comes at a cost. The advantage of allowing diversity is that it increases the competition of ideas and brings out the best in people. If you don’t want every place and every person to be exactly alike it means learning to accept that humanity is by nature fragmented and rejecting the idea we would be drastically better off is society was one homogeneous group. We do not need to be indoctrinated into thinking alike but must learn to be more tolerant.

    The overriding advantage of a fragmented world is that it offers a competitive environment for economic, social, and judicial systems. All of these play huge roles in our culture and have been the driving force of human progress. Circling back to the issue of the above videos, if you take a gander at one or more, you might find they give you a bit more hope that things here in America are not nearly as bad as we are often led to believe.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 21:05

  • Pharma Founder Gets 66 Months For Bribing Doctors To Overprescribe Deadly Opioids
    Pharma Founder Gets 66 Months For Bribing Doctors To Overprescribe Deadly Opioids

    Millions of Americans who lived through the financial crisis probably recall that not a single executive of a major investment bank was jailed in the aftermath, despite running organizations seemingly dedicated to perpetuating a criminal fraud on nearly every counterparty and client.

    But when Americans look back at the opioid crisis, they’ll remember that at least one executive of a major opioid manufacturer and distributor was sentenced to a fairly weighty sentence – five-and-a-half years (66 months) in federal prison – for an illegal kickback scheme that effectively involved bribing doctors to prescribe potentially lethal doses of fentanyl. That’s right: Packaged under the name brand Subsys, Insys sold a painkiller made from the same ultra-powerful synthetic opioid responsible for tens of thousands of deaths across America.

    According to the FT, which, in partnership with PBS’s Frontline, is producing a documentary on the opioid crisis, John Kapoor, the founder of Insys, was sentenced to prison time on Thursday after being prosecuted under the RICO act – a law adopted decades ago to help the DoJ prosecute the mafia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Kapoor

    Kapoor joins seven other Insys executives who have already received jail time for their role in the company’s illegal shenanigans, which included uses “ruthless” sales tactics to encourage doctors to prescribe more of their drug. Several doctors who took money from the company in exchange for kickbacks transparently disguised as speaking fees are also either being prosecuted, or have already been sentenced to jail time.

    Earlier on Thursday, Alec Burlakoff, Insys’s former head of sales and one of the government’s key cooperating witnesses accepted a sentence of 26 months in prison. The jail sentences were handed down despite a long tradition of allowing big pharma to skate by with fines that often amounted to a slap on the wrist.

    Subsys was approved by the FDA to target so-called “breakthrough pain”, something experienced by many patients with advanced cancer. But most of the doctors Insys targeted weren’t oncologists. The company encouraged them to prescribe the drug “off label” – meaning not for its approved purpose – to treat normal chronic pain.

    Kapoor is a serial entrepreneur who immigrated to the US from India in his early 20s. The fentanyl spray that was the company’s main product was approved in 2012.

    Under the company’s kick-back scheme, doctors who prescribed large quantities of the drug could earn up to $125,000 a year in speaking fees.

    The company depended on sales associates whom Kapoor described as “PHD” – “poor, hungry and desperate” or “poor, hungry and dumb.” One of the sales reps who got mixed up in the prosecution was a former stripper, a detail from the investigation that was widely covered in the press.

    Kapoor’s insistence that the company meticulously track the ROI from its illegal kickback scheme is what eventually did him in. Prosecutors managed to get their hands on a spreadsheet calculating the return on investment for every dollar spent on doctor “honorariums”. Kapoor insisted that, for every dollar a doctor received, they must bring in at least $2 in sales for Insys.

    Kapoor’s legal team insisted that their client was unfairly portrayed as a “caricature of a mob boss” by the prosecution. But the firm’s “callous culture” was exemplified by a sales video featuring a “rapping bottle of Subsys” encouraging doctors to raise the dose for their patient’s – effectively encouraging them to accidentally overdose and kill their own patients.

    Burlakoff, who played the rapping Subsys bottle in the video, told the press that the video was a big part of the incriminating evidence against him. He now regrets participating in it, even though he thought it was ‘cool’ at the time.

    Fred Wyshak, the prosecutor who handled the Insys case, gained notoriety for prosecuting the mob, and having a hand in the conviction of Whitey Bulger, the former Boston crime boss who was murdered while serving a life sentence last year


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 20:45

  • The Empire's War On Oppositional Journalism Continues To Escalate
    The Empire’s War On Oppositional Journalism Continues To Escalate

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    Journalist Glenn Greenwald has been charged by the Bolsonaro government in Brazil with the same prosecutorial angle used by the US to target WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Per The New York Times:

    Citing intercepted messages between Mr. Greenwald and the hackers, prosecutors say the journalist played a “clear role in facilitating the commission of a crime.”

    For instance, prosecutors contend that Mr. Greenwald encouraged the hackers to delete archives that had already been shared with The Intercept Brasil, in order to cover their tracks.

    Prosecutors also say that Mr. Greenwald was communicating with the hackers while they were actively monitoring private chats on Telegram, a messaging app. The complaint charged six other individuals, including four who were detained last year in connection with the cellphone hacking.

    This argument is essentially indistinguishable from the argument currently being used by the Trump administration in charging Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act. The US Department of Justice alleges that Assange attempted to provide Private Manning with advice and assistance in covering her tracks while leaking documents she already had access to, therefore making Assange party to a conspiracy against the United States.

    It is not surprising that Brazil is advancing the same war on journalism we’ve been seeing in the US, UK, Australia and France. With the election of the overtly fascist Jair Bolsonaro in October 2018 (an election whose corrupt foundations were exposed by Greenwald’s reporting with The Intercept Brasil), the Brazilian government moved into full alignment with the the US-centralized empire, which was why his inauguration was enthusiastically celebrated by characters like Donald TrumpMike PompeoJohn Bolton and Benjamin Netanyahu.

    In exactly the same way we saw a coordination between the US, UK, Sweden, Ecuador and Australia to immobilize, and then silence, and then imprison Julian Assange, we are seeing a uniform movement toward silencing oppositional journalism throughout the entire US-centralized empire. This is because a rising China and the increasing coziness of the cluster of nations which have resisted absorption into the imperial blob greatly imperil the USA’s position as the unipolar global dominator, meaning that the empire needs to quickly shore up global control in order to avoid being surpassed and replaced by other power structures.

    In order to accomplish this there’s going to have to be a lot of nefarious behavior. A lot of military escalations, a lot of CIA coups, a lot of bullying and subversion, and a whole lot of propaganda to grease the wheels of public consent. Such large, frantic, flailing movements can be easily exposed by a free press, which is precisely why the free press is being clamped down upon now. The empire is setting all these legal precedents against oppositional journalism because it fully intends to use those precedents in the future. It fully intends to use those legal precedents in the future because it knows it’s going to have to make things ugly.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This is all being done to prevent the public from gaining a clear understanding of what’s really going on in their world, because if the public had a clear understanding of what’s going on in their world, the empire would forever lose its ability to control them and rule them.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. The imperialists understand this. The public, by and large, do not. And the imperialists intend to keep it that way.

    Glenn Greenwald has spent the last three years being falsely smeared as a stooge of authoritarian governments while he was actually doing more damage to an authoritarian government than all of his critics combined. Public trust in oppressive institutions (like the oppressive institutions that empire loyalists have been protecting by smearing Greenwald as a Kremlin agent and a Putin puppet) can be severely weakened by the exposure of their dark underbellies to the light of truth.

    The imperialists know this, and they are determined not to allow it to continue. Hence their persecution of Assange, and hence their persecution of Greenwald.

    *  *  *

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 20:25

  • Libya's Haftar Threatens To Target Civilian Planes, Declares Blanket 'No Fly Zone'
    Libya’s Haftar Threatens To Target Civilian Planes, Declares Blanket ‘No Fly Zone’

    With the world’s attention focused on the Coronavirus outbreak and to a lesser extent on Trump’s impeachment trial, the war in Libya just got a lot more scary in terms of the potential for mass civilian death.

    Incredibly, Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) just threatened to shoot down civilian planes after days ago declaring a ‘no fly zone’ over Tripoli following increased Turkish intervention. The BBC reports the unambiguous and shocking declaration as follows

    Gen Haftar’s spokesman, Ahmad al-Mesmari, said in a statement on Wednesday that “any military or civilian aircraft, regardless of its affiliation, flying over the capital will be destroyed”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image via Middle East Monitor 

    In the past days Haftar has accused Turkey, which has lately openly transferred both Turkish national army troops as well as Syrian FSA mercenaries into Tripoli to fight on behalf of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, of using the Libyan capital’s only functioning international airport as a military base. 

    It appears the LNA is saying it will consider even commercial flights as ‘fair game’ because it’s alleging Turkey and the GNA are using civilian aviation in a ‘human shield’ capacity

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The BBC has further details as follows:

    The GNA branded the strikes a “flagrant threat” to the safety of air traffic and a “new violation” of a ceasefire agreed earlier this month.

    Gen Haftar’s forces did not immediately respond to the accusations, but did say they had shot down a Turkish drone after it took off from the airport.

    Mitiga is a former military airbase which has been used by civilian planes since Tripoli’s international airport was damaged in fighting in 2014.

    Pro-Haftar officials have also charged that Mitiga international airport has become a drone headquarters, and further that foreign troops are disembarking there. 

    On Wednesday Mitiga airport was forced to suspend all flights for hours after it was rocked by six surface-fired missiles by LNA militia which for months has been laying siege to Tripoli. The LNA said it was targeting foreign drones (operated by Turkey) which have been used to attack its own troops.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The AFP reported Thursday that after announcing indefinite closure of the airport, the GNA “decided to restore air traffic at Mitiga Airport” according to a statement published on Facebook. However, the status remains anything but clear. 

    The GNA said it plans to notify the UN Security Council of the Haftar military statement, which constitutes threat of a war crime. 

    Needless to say this is a major escalation which won’t help Haftar’s bid to curry favor within international bodies like the UN, which currently backs the Tripoli GNA.

    Haftar has rejected recent international attempts for a ceasefire, recently at summits in Moscow and Berlin. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Should his forces actually do the unthinkable and down a civilian airplane, his own backers (like the UAE, Egypt, and Russia) would be forced to cut all political and military support.

    And likely more external assistance would pour in to the Tripoli GNA, alongside Turkey’s already substantial and growing military help. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 20:05

  • Localism In The 2020s, Part 3 – Scaling Politics
    Localism In The 2020s, Part 3 – Scaling Politics

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Read Part 1 here – The 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Movement

    Read Part 2 here – Facial Recognition, Psilocybin, And Beyond

    Today’s post will outline a framework through which I’ve come to view politics, as well as life in general. It will identify and examine various units of sovereignty as they exist in the contemporary U.S., since that’s the political system I’m most familiar with. Nevertheless, the overall framework should prove useful to people living all over the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Let’s start from the beginning. The most basic and meaningful unit of sovereignty is the individual, followed by the family, the municipality/county, the state (California, New York, Texas, etc) and finally the federal government (Washington D.C.). It’s my view that within a healthy society the scope of governance should decline as you add more and more individuals to the mix. It’s at the most basic unit of sovereignty (the individual), where authority over most of life’s decisions should reside. This runs the gamut from the really big decisions, such as what sort of work to do, who to marry, what religion (if any) to believe in; to the completely mundane, such as what to eat for breakfast.

    As a person starts to add more members to their daily life in the form of a family (spouse and children), a wide range of complexities are added to the equation which call for a more expansive approach to individual agency. You suddenly find yourself sharing an intimate existence with people who are not you, and who’ll invariably have conflicting views on a wide variety of subjects, both significant and trivial. Compromise becomes necessary in the pursuit of a harmonious coexistence amongst spouses, as well as within the larger family unit, and you start to relinquish a certain degree of individual sovereignty.

    It’s important to note that the creation of a family by consenting adults tends to be a voluntary choice by which individuals agree to put some of their more selfish proclivities to the side in order to create a cohesive, expansive unit. Since the decision to form a family is in most cases voluntary, the decision to relinquish some measure of individual sovereignty is likewise voluntary. While it’s not romantic to consider the transition from an individual-centric lifestyle to a family-focused one in the context of politics and governance, it can be quite helpful.

    After the family, the next major unit of sovereignty is found at the municipal or county level. At this stage, a significantly larger number of humans have been added to the structure, ranging from thousands to millions depending on where you live. Unless you reside in the smallest of towns, this unit will consist of countless people you don’t personally know and never will. Nevertheless, a common geography will almost always lead to some level of coordination and decision-making for stuff that applies to and affects the larger unit.

    What this means in practice should be determined by those living in the communities themselves. As anyone who’s travelled extensively around the U.S. knows, distinct cities and counties tend to have very different vibes and attitudes about all sorts of life issues, and in some cases counties bordering one another even within the same state demonstrate dramatic differences. It’s important to accept this as perfectly normal and healthy, just as two neighboring families can have distinct views on all sorts of issues and still get along just fine. Each family runs their affairs as they deem appropriate.

    Moving further up the scale, political units beyond the municipality/county level in the U.S. consist of the 50 states. This is where things start getting far more complex, as you begin adding millions if not tens of millions of additional people of very diverse opinions and geography under the umbrella of a much larger governance structure. In the case of the U.S., some of these states are as large, in terms of population and economy, as entire countries. After that, there’s the dreaded federal government, which covers an unwieldly large and diverse political unit of 325 million people.

    It seems one major source of our current problems stems from an improper understanding and delegation of sovereignty along the scale of our existing political units. For example, as you move up the scale from individual, to family, to city/county, then state and finally country, you add more and more people as well as geography, and the bonds become more complex and impersonal. The political relationships also tend to become less voluntary as you move up the scale, which is meaningful. For example, it’s relatively easy and common to get up and move from one city to another, but changing national citizenship is a major ordeal which most people never consider let alone consummate.

    The nature of sovereignty and politics under this framework is that as the unit expands to more individuals, some degree of individual sovereignty is relinquished each step of the way. Equally significant, is as the units grow the voluntary nature of the relationship starts to fade. Since a political unit becomes less voluntary as it scales, the larger the unit, the less authority it should have to exercise political power in relation to the smaller, more voluntary units. Does anyone reading this actually think they have as much capacity to first understand the issues and then impact decision making in Washington D.C. as they do at the local level? As political relationships become less voluntary and fluid (lack of clear exists), the proper scope of governance should decline.

    Specifically, whatever can be done at the municipal/county level, should be done at the municipal/county level, with the larger state only chiming in when it’s absolutely necessary for decisions that require larger scale coordination. This same principle should be applied to the relationship between the states themselves and Washington D.C. What requires no input or assistance from the country-level political unit should be left to the smaller units as appropriate. Only the small number of issues that require national coordination should be considered at the country level, and even then there should be direct input from the smaller units in the form of referendums.

    The men whom the people ought to choose to represent them are too busy to take the jobs. But the politician is waiting for it. He’s the pestilence of modern times. What we should try to do is make politics as local as possible. Keep the politicians near enough to kick them. The villagers who met under the village tree could also hang their politicians to the tree. It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.”

    – G. K. Chesterton

    The spirit of the U.S. Constitution is based upon this general idea, though I place more emphasis on the municipal/county level vs. the states. A good example of the proper role of the federal government as outlined in the founding document is the Bill of Rights. These consist of what are seen as inalienable individual rights that should never be infringed upon across the country irrespective of where you reside within the smaller political units. The principle here isn’t to create a structure whereby Washington D.C. is in charge of micromanaging the everyday lives of people across the land, but rather the opposite. It’s a principle aimed at preventing the micromanagement of individual sovereignty by making certain core rights unassailable.

    Though we pay lip service to checks and balances, decentralization of power and a defense of core civil liberties explicit in the U.S. Constitution, we most certainly do not live these ideals in reality. The big elephant in the room that many people still refuse to talk about is that the U.S. in 2020 is an imperial oligarchy, and an imperial oligarchy is a system defined by gross concentrations of power and centralization. Much of the frustration in the county can be traced to this state of affairs. We’ve been losing control of our individual lives and communities in order to feed the insatiable beast of empire, and worst of all, we’ve been convinced that the answer is to fight each other for this centralized power so at least our team can be in charge of the bossing around.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This is a twisted and deranged mindset guaranteed to end in tyranny of one flavor or another, civil conflict, or both. Nothing good can come of it, which is why I firmly believe we need to turn in the opposite direction.

    We need to turn away from Washington D.C. and focus on the smaller units of sovereignty outlined in this post, specifically the individual, the family and the municipality/county. These relationships tend to be more intimate, manageable and voluntary and, as such, should be were political life is centered. This what localism means to me.

    *  *  *

    Liberty Blitzkrieg is an ad-free website. If you enjoyed this post and my work in general, visit the Support Page where you can donate and contribute to my efforts.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 19:45

  • Russiagate Spy Paid $1 Million By Obama Was WaPo Deep Throat
    Russiagate Spy Paid $1 Million By Obama Was WaPo Deep Throat

    Stephan Halper, the longtime CIA and FBI operative who conducted espionage on the 2016 Trump campaign, was feeding information to Washington Post reporter David Ignatius through his handler, according to The Federalist, which describes his actions as “more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to a court filing by Michael Flynn’s defense team, Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), Col. James Baker, “regularly lunched with the Washington Post reporter.

    (Also leaking to Ignatius was Christopher Steele)

    As we noted in May of 2018, Halper was paid over $1 million by the Obama administration through the Office of Net Assessment – nearly half of which came during ‘Russiagate’ – in which he not only surveilled multiple Trump campaign aides, he was involved in an effort to tie General Flynn to a Russian academic, Svetlana Lokhova, as part of a smear campaign.

    Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case.

    In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment. –The Federalist

    Powell wrote:

    Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense.

    Lokhova sued Halper and multiple MSM outlets for defamation after Halper-fuelled rumors that she was a Russian spy who had ‘honeypotted’ Flynn, which were first promoted by Lokhova’s mentor at Cambridge University – Professor Christopher Andrew, who wrote in the London Sunday Times in February 2017 that her brief meeting with Flynnn during a 2015 dinner event was the beginning of the former National Security Adviser’s relationship with a Russian spy.

    Prior to Andrew’s article, other outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the New York Times had published rumors of a Flynn connection to a supposed Russian spy, however Lokhova had no clue it was her until she was outed.

    “Halper had been pushing the story that I was a Russian spy and Flynn’s mistress since December of 2016,” Lokhova told The Federalist. “The New York Times’ Mathew Rosenberg told me a source had been circulating these stories since December 2016,” she said, adding “but they held the story until they could find a second source and someone at the Cambridge dinner.”

    In his book “The Plot Against the President,” Lee Smith confirms that the story about a Flynn-Lokhova intrigue was circulated to the press starting in December 2016.

    But it wasn’t until the Wall Street Journal published its March 17, 2017, article suggesting she had inappropriate contacts with Flynn that Lokhova discovered the earlier article Andrew had written about her for the Sunday Times, Lokhova said. Before then, within days of February 28, 2017, several journalists reached out to her for comment, including two working for the Wall Street Journal, but Lokhova didn’t know why.

    She also didn’t comprehend who the inquiring journalists were at the time. That remained true even after her mentor and unknown betrayer, Andrew, wrote Lokhova telling her that “David Ignatius of Washington Post is in UK at moment. I’ve known him for years and trust him. I’ve given him your email and he accepts that if you don’t wish to respond, that an end to it.” –The Federalist

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via The Federalist

    It is unknown what Andrew meant by Ignatius’s “inside track,” however the above email was sent to Lokhova just one month after Ignatus reported the illegally leaked details of Flynn’s conversation with Russia’s ambassador – leading to his firing.

    Read the rest of the report here.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 19:44

    Tags

  • Worldwide Searches For 'Virus Mask' Erupt Amid Deadly Outbreak 
    Worldwide Searches For ‘Virus Mask’ Erupt Amid Deadly Outbreak 

    As the number of confirmed coronavirus cases at 830 with 25 deaths, worldwide Google searches for “virus mask” have erupted ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The deadly virus is causing alarm because of how easily it spreads between people. So far, there are no drugs, known at the moment, that can prevent human to human transmission

    Videos are surfacing on social media, showing people in China dropping dead as authorities have locked down seven cities in an unprecedented effort to contain the outbreak. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Worldwide searches for “virus mask” have surged in the last five days as cases of the deadly virus have spread from China to the U.S., Singapore, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Top regions for “virus mask” searches are in Singapore, China, Macao, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Other related global queries are “n95 mask,” “buy n95 mask,” “wuhan,” “wuhan virus,” and “where to buy n95 mask.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    More related global queries include “china virus,” “3m n95 mask,” “n95 respirator mask,” “n95 respirator,” and “chinese virus.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Google searches for “n95 mask,” a medical respirator designed to protect the wearer from liquid and airborne particles contaminating the face, was the most searched across the world, and in Macao, Singapore, China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines over the last five days.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Since the first coronavirus case was confirmed just north of Seattle on Tuesday, searches for “virus mask” across the U.S. have exploded. People in Washington, Hawaii, California, District of Columbia, and Massachusetts Googled it the most. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    On related queries within the U.S. – many searched “n95 mask,” and where to buy the surgical respirator. Some searches include”n95 mask cvs,” “n95 mask home depot,” and “n95 mask target.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It seems the global run on surgical masks has started as the deadly virus spreads across the world. 

    As far as world epidemics and the global stock market performance, here’s a chart showing what could happen next: 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 19:25

  • Coronavirus Death Toll Hits 25 As Beijing Confirms 830 Patients Infected
    Coronavirus Death Toll Hits 25 As Beijing Confirms 830 Patients Infected

    Summary:

    • 8 Chinese cities, more than 23 million people, effectively under quarantine

    • Multiple cases across the world – from Scotland to Singapore and USA

    • 830 Infected in mainland China according to Chinese officials (Mainland China: 830 Taiwan: 1 Macau: 2 Hong Kong: 2 Vietnam: 2 Thailand: 3 Singapore: 1 Japan: 1 South Korea: 1 US: 1)

    • 25 Dead (following 1st death outside Wuhan)

    • WHO says “not the time to declare a global health emergency”

    • Patient in Texas recently traveled to Wuhan

    • WHO estimates coronavirus is about as contagious as the Spanish flu, more than twice as infectious as the common flu. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Update (1920ET): As Friday begins in Beijing, Chinese state media has announced that the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in mainland China has climbed to 830, while the number of deaths has climbed to 25. As Beijing expands its efforts to crack down on the virus ahead of the LNY holiday, media reports claim that Beijing has requested the closing of all indoor activities involving more than 100 people.

    Meanwhile, more disturbing videos out of Wuhan are circulating online as reports about a growing number of sick health-care workers circulate in the Hong Kong press.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In other news, US lawmakers are set to be briefed on the virus Friday morning.

    * * *

    Update (1750ET): Japan’s health ministry confirmed a second case of coronavirus on Friday, reported Reuters.

    The infected man who lives in Wuhan, China, traveled to Japan on Sunday — has been hospitalized in Tokyo, the health ministry said in a statement.

    Details are limited at the moment. There was no mention of how many people the infected man came in contact with before being quarantined. New reports out of the UK are claiming that 14 people are now being tested for the virus after earlier reports said 3 people in Scotland were under quarantine as suspected carriers of the virus.

    Meanwhile, the number of cities in Hubei province facing a travel ban/lockdown/quarantine has been expanded to eight: Wuhan, Huanggang, Ezhou, Chibi, Xiantao, Qianjiang, Zhijiang and Lichuan.

    SCMP has also released some more details about the first death outside of Hubei: An 80-year-old man died in the town of Hebei after spending two months in Wuhan visiting relatives.

    Back in Wuhan, ride-share company Didi has suspended its service, as China’s finance ministry announced that 1 billion yuan ($144 million) would be used by Hubei authorities to halt the spread of the illness.

    Also, in the latest sign that the regime in Beijing hasn’t kept its promise of complete transparency, the SCMP reports that health-care workers in Wuhan are getting sick at a rate that is faster than previously revealed. Initially, Chinese authorities insisted that health care workers weren’t being sickened, indicating that the virus didn’t spread via human to human contact. But we’ve since learned that this was a lie.

    Fifteen cases of the coronavirus have been officially reported among health care workers in the city, though doctors say the real number is much higher.

    Just as we expected, the situation in Wuhan has gotten so out of hand that videos of health-care workers collapsing from exhaustion are circulating online.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    If it seems like every person who managed to escape Wuhan is carrying the virus, here’s one possible explanation: the WHO estimated that the coronavirus has a Ro (a measure of how contagious a virus is) of 2, equivalent to the Spanish flu that sickened 500 million during the first half of the 20th century. The common flu, by comparison, has a Ro of 0.9.

    * * *

    Update (1600ET): Markets recovered on Thursday after the WHO declined to label the coronavirus as a global pandemic threat (though we suspect they might change their view once the market has closed).

    But now that Beijing’s shock-and-awe approach to containing the viral panic appears to have convinced health officials that the virus won’t make it to the next generation of transmission, it’s worth remembering that Beijing’s attempt to quarantine more than 20 million people was hardly comprehensive.

    For examples, look at this Vice story, which claims one woman evaded airport checks by taking medication that lowered a fever. According to Vice, the Chinese embassy in Paris is hoping to speak with her after she visited a Michelin-starred restaurant and shared the whole experience on WeChat.

    The warning came after one woman from Wuhan took medicine to bring down her temperature to avoid detection as she boarded a flight to France, where she dined at a Michelin-starred restaurant.

    The woman was heavily criticized for her actions after she posted photos and details of her trip on WeChat. On Wednesday night the Chinese embassy in France responded with a warning and asked the woman to contact their emergency phone number.

    Some people won’t let the risk of contagion spoil their holiday plans.

    * * *

    Update (1530ET): 7News reports that an individual suspected of coronavirus infection has been quarantined in Sydney.

    * * *

    Update (1510ET): Investigators are reportedly examining another potential case of coronavirus in Texas’s Brazos County.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The patient recently traveled from Wuhan and is reportedly suffering from symptoms similar to those who have been infected by the virus .

    Meanwhile, a passenger at LAX has been quarantined after showing symptoms of the virus. That patient arrived at LAX from Mexico City and exhibited “disturbing” symptoms, according to health officials, per Fox 5.

    This development comes a day after Los Angeles County public health officials said it was “very possible” the area will see at least one patient, given the number of people traveling between the Southland and China.

    *  *  *

    Update (1325ET): The World Health Organization, after a second day of meetings, have decided AGAINST declaring an international virus alarm. The panel was reportedly split on the decision and may revise the decision but for now states that “now is not the time” to declare an emergency.

    “Make no mistake: This is an emergency in China,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said.

    “But it has not yet become a global health emergency. It may yet become one.”

    *  *  *

    Update (1300ET): CNBC’s Eunice Yoon just provided a shocking update to the status of the deadly virus in China:

    “7 cities and 23 million people are effectively under quarantine.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The cities under effective martial law – with all travel in, around, and out halted – are Wuhan, Huanggang, Zhijiang, Ezhou, Qianjiang, Chibi, and Xiantao.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    That is more people quarantined than the population of Florida (21.6m).

    Outside of China, cases keep appearing (map does not include recent cases in Scotland and Ireland):

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    Update (1150ET): If you haven’t cancelled those tickets to Wuhan yet, you might want to hold off: The State Department has just reverted its safety warning on travel to China to “exercise caution” from “reconsider your travel plans”.

    Clearly, somebody in the Chinese government complained, and with US stocks deep in the red, it seems the Trump Administration was perceptive.

    After all, the point is to convince the public not to panic.

    * * *

    Update (1130ET): As the number of confirmed coronavirus cases nears 650 (the latest count put the number at 647), the US State Department has decided to reassure Americans that they are ‘safe’ from the virus.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China has nearly competed its quarantine of four cities in Hubei, even as experts warn it won’t be enough. As millions prepared to travel, George Gao Fu, head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, warned the Chinese public to stay home during the holiday season, warning that this was a “crucial time” to stop the virus. 

    With 444 confirmed cases, Wuhan remains the epicenter of the epidemic. Reports about another virus-related death are circulating on social media, along with a terrifying video of first-responders in full-body gear treating an individual who had seemingly collapsed in the middle of the road.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    That’s not exactly reassuring.

    Meanwhile, in Wuhan, shortages of medical supplies and facemasks are already prompting hospitals, universities and charities to reach out to the surrounding area for donations.

    But sure – everything is under control.

    * * *

    Update (1045ET): Just in case you had plans to celebrate LNY at a fish market in Wuhan, the US government has published a travel warning advising Americans to ‘reconsider traveling to China’ amid the latest viral outbreak.

    • U.S. URGES TRAVELERS TO RECONSIDER CHINA VISITS DUE TO VIRUS

    Even if you made it to Wuhan at this point, one might encounter difficulties trying to enter the city, especially as a foreigner.

    * * *

    Update (0950ET): The BBC is reporting that a suspected case of coronavirus has been detected in Scotland.

    Note: These are only suspected cases – not yet confirmed.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    If confirmed, this would be the first case of the virus in the UK, and would indicate another intrusion into the developed world, this time in Europe.

    The UK Health Secretary said Friday morning that the coronavirus is “increasingly likely” to hit Britain, the Times of London reports.

    According to CNN, the number of coronavirus cases confirmed around the world has climbed to 622 (once again, the graphic below is ever-so-slightly out of date):

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And the scramble for facemasks continues, with Hong Kong stores swiftly running out of stock, and black-market sellers engaging in widespread gouging of terrified customers.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Update (0935ET): India’s foreign office said Thursday that an Indian nurse in Saudi Arabia has been diagnosed with the Wuhan coronavirus.

    “About 100 Indian nurses mostly from Kerala working at Al-Hayat hospital have been tested and none except one nurse was found infected by Corona virus,” tweeted Vellamvelly Muraleedharan, Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, on Thursday.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Cases have also been reported in Russia, Hong Kong and Macau, in addition to all of the countries listed below:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Saudi Arabia’s economy depends on millions of migrant workers, a group that includes many Indians.

    * * *

    Update (0841ET): Beijing says the number of confirmed Wuhan cases in China has climbed to 634, bringing the global total to 641.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here’s a breakdown of cases by region (though it might be slightly out of date, it gets the point across):

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In keeping with China’s insistence that the Wuhan virus is far less deadly than the 2003 SARS outbreak, the SCMP reports that almost half of the 17 people who have succumbed to the virus so far were aged 80 or older, and most of them had pre-existing health conditions. All of those who died, 13 men and four women so far, were from the central province of Hubei, and were treated in hospitals in its capital, Wuhan, epicenter of the outbreak. Chinese authorities have quarantined most of the biggest sources in the province.

    Here’s some more information on the victims, including the types of illnesses they faced:

    At least nine of those who died had pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, coronary artery disease and Parkinson’s disease. Eight were in their eighties, two in their seventies, five in their sixties and one man was in his fifties. The youngest woman was 48 and had a pre-existing condition.

    One 89-year-old man, surnamed Chen, had a history of high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart disease and other conditions. He began experiencing symptoms on January 13, including difficulty breathing but not fever. Five days later, he was admitted to the Wuhan Union Hospital with severe breathing difficulties, and tested positive for pneumonia. He died the following evening.

    The 48-year-old woman, surnamed Yin, had suffered from diabetes and had also had a stroke. She first had a fever, aches and pains on December 10 and her condition slowly deteriorated. She was treated at two hospitals in Wuhan before she died on Monday.

    Officials in Beijing have been cautious about making definitive statements about the origins and characteristics of the disease, including its incubation period, saying more investigation was needed.

    “There’s still a need for further study of the virus over time,” said Gao Fu, director of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, at a press briefing on Wednesday.

    “As for the impact on younger people, according to current epidemiology and what we know right now, they really aren’t susceptible,” he said.

    Patients as young as 15 have been infected with the pneumonia-like virus, according to Wuhan health officials. There are now more than 570 confirmed cases, including some reported in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, the United States, Japan, South Korea and Thailand.

     

    * * *

    Update (0800ET): CNA, an English-language news website based across Asia, has just reported that Singapore has confirmed the first case of the Wuhan coronavirus.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a media briefing on Thursday evening, the Ministry of Health said the carrier is a 66-year-old Chinese man from Wuhan. The man arrived in Singapore with his family on Jan. 20 after flying in from Guangzhou via China Southern. The man reported having a soar throat on the flight, but no fever.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Earlier, St. Petersburg reportedly confirmed its third case of the Wuhan virus.

    The man traveled to Singapore General on Wednesday, and was immediately placed in isolation. He tested positive for the virus at 6 pm local time on Thursday. Singaporean authorities have already begun a contact tree, and are isolating all those with whom the suspect had contact.

    The diagnosis is just the latest indication that, even as more Chinese cities cancel LNY celebrations, too many Chinese, including Chinese from Wuhan, have already traveled abroad. And the week-long holiday doesn’t even start until Saturday.

    This live NYT map of confirmed Wuhan cases appears to be out-of-date, despite having just been updated.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The number of confirmed cases is closer to 600. Still, it gets the point across.

    * * *

    Update (0700ET): Beijing is reportedly planning to quarantine a third city in Hubei Province, where the coronavirus outbreak originated, while a fourth city in the province is planning to shut down train travel.

    Media reports claim that Chibi, a city with half a million Chinese, will be quarantined like Wuhan and Huanggang. Meanwhile, Ezhou, a city with 1 million people in Hubei, is seeing some transportation shut down.

    Meanwhile, officials in Beijing have joined several other Chinese cities in cancelling Chinese New Year celebrations.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Conflicting report are alternatively claiming that Ezhou and Chibi will be the third Chinese city to face a quarantine. Does that mean officials are planning to quarantine the entire province?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    There have also been reports about a third patient being identified in St. Petersburg, while other cities, including Hong Kong, stock up on facemask supplies.

    * * *

    As cases of the new coronavirus popped up around the globe, Chinese health officials managed to assuage the worries of the public, and the market, by insisting that the new, deadly coronavirus that emerged late last month in Wuhan had been ‘contained’ and that the outbreak would swiftly die down.

    Despite imposing some draconian travel bans, it’s becoming increasingly clear that this isn’t going to happen. Even after quarantining an entire city of 11 million people – Wuhan is the 7th largest city in China and larger than any US city – experts are warning that it’s too late: The cat is already out of the bag.

    But that won’t stop Beijing from trying: Now that Wuhan has been effectively cut off, Chinese officials announced another city-wide quarantine on Thursday: Huanggang city, which is in Hubei province and situated close to Wuhan, will suspend outbound train and bus services, as well as all bus services within the city effective Friday. All public places, including movie theaters, have been ordered to close until further notice, practically guaranteeing that the quarantine will take a bite out of GDP. Though even after authorities cut off all flights, Reuters reports that a few airlines were still running flights out of Wuhan.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As the SCMP pointed out, Wuhan, the city at the center of the outbreak, is five times larger than London.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The decision comes as more than 600 cases of the virus have now been confirmed. The death toll has been steady since yesterday at 17, as the WHO ponders whether to label the outbreak as a global pandemic risk.

    Chinese state broadcasters shared images of Wuhan’s ghostly transport hubs, including the Hankou rail station, with all gates barred or blocked. Highway toll booths were shutting down as guards patrolled major highways. Inside the city, residents crowded into hospitals and rushed to buy up essential supplies from supermarkets and gas stations.

    Interestingly, at least one Western journalist is reporting from Wuhan. We imagine Beijing allowed ABC access to the city to try and calm the growing panic in the West.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As more barriers rise, one well-known public health expert known for his work on the SARS outbreak warned that the quarantines likely wouldn’t be enough to stop the virus from becoming a global pandemic, according to the New York Times.

    Dr. Guan Yi, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Hong Kong who visited Wuhan earlier this week, warned there was a potential for the virus to spread rapidly despite the controls put in place Thursday morning.

    “We have a chance to have a pandemic outbreak,” said Dr. Guan, who was part of the team that identified the coronavirus that caused the deadly SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003. SARS infected more than 8,000 people and killed nearly 800.

    Dr. Guan also told Caixin, an influential Chinese magazine known for investigative reports, that he had traveled to Wuhan earlier in the week hoping to help track the virus’s animal source and control the epidemic. But he left, he said, feeling “powerless, very angry.”

    Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who advised the Chinese government and the World Health Organization during the SARS outbreak, said that infected people outside Wuhan would continue to spread the disease.

    “The horse is already out of the barn,” he said.

    Another expert warned that there could already be as many as 4,000 cases of coronavirus in Wuhan, meaning that the vast majority of infections likely haven’t yet been reported.

    Meanwhile, regulators around the world are scrambling to cut off flights from Wuhan (even though Beijing has supposedly cut off all rail and plane travel out of the city): The Philippines is the latest country to cut off flights from the city. The country’s Civil Aeronautics Board added that flights from elsewhere in China would be placed under ‘strict monitoring’, according to CNN Philippines. Manila, the Philippines’ crowded capital city, has started handing out 100,000 face masks.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The director of the country’s Civil Aeronautics Board explained that, even though Beijing is quarantining entire cities, it’s up to the Philippines to take their own steps to curb the outbreak.

    “When you look at the seriousness of the outbreak, Wuhan should be the focus of attention,” CAB Executive Director Carmelo Arcilla told reporters.

    “Even if they lift it, we have to look at our side first and make our own assessment. So our assessment is different from theirs, I mean, even their decision is different from ours,” Arcilla said.

    Experts have warned that quarantining an entire city of 11 million would be virtually impossible. But the nabobs in Beijing refuse to be deterred: Videos circulating on social media show Chinese police setting up barricades across roads leading out of the city. Anybody in Wuhan who had New Year’s travel plans should probably cancel them and ask for a refund.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    After a suspected case of coronavirus was discovered in Macau yesterday, officials in the special autonomous region warned that they might close all casinos in the territory, a move that would spoil the vacation plans of millions of Chinese planning to travel to Macau for the Chinese New Year. A second case was reportedly discovered on Thursday.

    Across the world, a mildly risk-off mood is once again dominating markets. That means US stocks are one outbreak headline away from deeper declines.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 19:22

  • The "Twin Threats" Facing Big Oil
    The “Twin Threats” Facing Big Oil

    Authored by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

    The global oil and gas industry is facing the “twin threats” of the loss of profitability and the loss of social acceptability as the climate crisis continues to worsen. The industry is not adequately responding to either of those threats, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

    “Oil and gas companies have been proficient at delivering the fuels that form the bedrock of today’s   energy system; the question that they now face is whether they can help deliver climate solutions,” the IEA said.

    The report, whose publication was timed to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, critiques the oil industry for not doing enough to plan for the transition. The IEA said that companies are spending only about 1 percent of their capex on anything outside of their core oil and gas strategy. Even the companies doing the most are only spending about 5 percent of their budgets on non-oil and gas investments.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There are some investments here and there into solar, or electric vehicle recharging infrastructure, but by and large the oil majors are doing very little to overhaul their businesses. The top companies only spent about $2 billion on solar, wind, biofuels and carbon capture last year.

    Before even getting to the transition risk due to climate change, the oil industry was already facing questions about profitability. Over the past decade the free cash flow from operations at the five largest oil majors trailed the total sent to shareholders by about $200 billion. In other words, they cannot afford to finance their operations and also keep up obligations to shareholders. Something will have to change.

    But, of course, as climate policy begins to tighten, oil demand growth will slow and level off. Most analysts say that it won’t require a big hit to demand in order for the financial havoc to really begin to devastate the balance sheets of the majors. Demand only needs to stop growing.

    The IEA said there are things the industry can do right now – and should have done a long time ago. Roughly 15 percent of the energy sector’s total greenhouse gas emissions comes from upstream production. “Reducing methane leaks to the atmosphere is the single most important and cost-effective way for the industry to bring down these emissions,” the IEA said. But, the Permian is flaring more gas than ever, and methane leaks at every stage of the extraction and distribution process. Drillers have promises improvements, but the industry’s track record to date is not good.

    Meanwhile, the IEA also noted that while attention is often focused on the oil majors, national oil companies (NOCs) account for more than half of global oil production. The majors only account for about 15 percent.

    It is one thing for ExxonMobil or Chevron to face an existential crisis – which, absent an attempt to transition to a low-carbon business, they certainly do – but it’s an entirely different thing for the NOCs who will struggle to deal with the energy transition. The threat from the energy transition is not just to a specific business, but to whole governments and entire populations. “Some are high performing, but many are poorly positioned to adapt to changing global energy dynamics,” the IEA said. “None of the large NOCs have been charged by their host governments with leadership roles in renewables or other noncore areas.”

    Ultimately, the report from the IEA should be worrying for the industry. The agency itself has faced criticism for not being more at the forefront of calling for a clean energy transition, and its forecasts for renewables have consistently undershot actual improvements for renewable technologies. The agency also continues to call for more upstream oil and gas investment. In other words, the IEA is somewhat conservative, and has been slow to recognize major shifts in the energy sector.

    As such, the majors should probably take note when the IEA says something like “the transformation of the energy sector can happen without the oil and gas industry.” They can drag their feet, and will become increasingly ravaged by policy change and a deterioration in their core business. Or, they could proactively transform themselves, as the IEA says they should. Solutions to climate change “cannot be found within today’s oil and gas paradigm,” the agency said.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 19:05

  • US To Deploy Anti-Missile Systems In Iraq As Trump Downplays Troop Injuries As "Headaches"
    US To Deploy Anti-Missile Systems In Iraq As Trump Downplays Troop Injuries As “Headaches”

    President Trump was dismissive of widespread reports of eleven US soldiers sustaining head injuries as a result of the Jan.8 Iranian ballistic missile attack on Ayn al-Asad airbase in Iraq. At least eight had been airlifted to a medical facility in Germany for possible “traumatic brain injuries”, which the Pentagon and administration kept mum about in the days following. 

    While fielding questions at Davos on Wednesday, Trump downplayed what he likened as mere “headaches” when pressed about the issue and the administration’s evolving narrative, which initially emphasized “no US casualties” as a result of the Iranian attack.

    Trump explained at the news conference his view that the injuries were “not very serious,” and added that “I heard they had headaches.” This prompted some veterans groups to reportedly say Trump is “somewhat out of touch” with the seriousness of it.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Meanwhile, the Pentagon is preparing for a ‘likely’ deployment of anti-air defense systems to Iraq in order to provide greater protection for US forces against future Iranian missile threats. 

    In the wake of the Iranian assault, a number of pundits and officials questioned why there weren’t anti-air defenses already in place.

    According to FOX:

    Fox News previously reported that the U.S. military didn’t shoot down any of Iran’s ballistic missiles because there was no missile defense system in position.

    A senior Pentagon official told Fox News that they believed an Iranian missile attack was “unlikely.” U.S. officials say a Patriot air defense system will now likely be deployed.

    There is a worldwide shortage of Patriots. Some units are currently bogged down protecting bases in Saudi Arabia.

    Patriots are also currently deployed in defense of US assets, especially expensive military aircraft, around bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    US Army Patriot missile battery file image.

    These defensive systems could be placed in Iraq at a time when the entire question of a future US military presence there is in doubt, given Iraq’s parliament is moving to expel the Americans. 

    Trump recently threatened sanctions on its uneasy ally should Baghdad go through with it. Washington fears ‘Iranian expansion’ and entrenchment should it bring the troops home. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 18:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 23rd January 2020

  • Wahrheit Macht Frei… Truth Sets You Free
    Wahrheit Macht Frei… Truth Sets You Free

    Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    This week sees the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi Auschwitz death camp by the Soviet Red Army. But the momentous event is being overshadowed by renewed attempts by the Polish authorities – aided by American and German officials – to shift the blame for the Second World War on to the Soviet Union.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The grimly deceptive German maxim “Arbeit Macht Frei” (“Works Sets You Free”) adorning the iron-gate entrance to Auschwitz through which millions of prisoners passed on their way to death, could be subtitled today with the more honest phrase “Wahrheit Macht Frei” (“Truth Sets You Free”).

    Because what is going on in the Polish commemoration of Auschwitz and claims about the origins of the Second World War more generally is an appalling distortion of history to suit current geopolitical interests in the West of undermining Russia. Concealing or denying the causes of war only traps the world into repeating war.

    Rather than being given a full place of honor for the liberation of the extermination camp in southern Poland on January 27, 1945, by the Soviet army, today Moscow is being sidelined despite its crucial role in crushing the Nazi regime and all its horrors.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly declined to attend the 75th anniversary in Poland. Russia will be represented by its ambassador to the country. Putin is attending an equivalent event in Israel, and at that alternative commemoration will be afforded due prominence to mark the liberating achievement of Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union. It is understandable why the Russian president decided to give the event in Poland a miss because of the toxic claims made recently by Warsaw and other Western states concerning allegations that the Soviet Union colluded with Nazi Germany in instigating the war.

    This distortion of history has even gained an official status when the European Parliament – after Polish and Baltic state lobbying – adopted a resolution last September in which the Soviet Union is cast as equally culpable along with the Nazi Third Reich for starting World War II.

    When President Putin slammed that resolution as “nonsense” and went on to point out Poland’s own documented collaboration with Nazi Germany, the current Polish government, along with German and American diplomats, doubled down on the accusations impugning Moscow for having partial responsibility for the worst conflagration in history.

    Those Polish and Western accusations stem from the historical Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact which was signed on August 23, 1939, one week before the Nazis invaded Poland. Thus it is claimed that Stalin’s detente with Hitler emboldened the latter to launch the war.

    As Radio Free Europe reported: “German envoy Rolf Nikel and US Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher both said on December 30 that Germany and the Soviet Union colluded to start the war in 1939 that led to the death of tens of millions of people on continental Europe.”

    Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Moraweicka denounced Putin’s version of history as “lying… trampling the memory of those events. Poland must stand up for the truth, not for its own interests but for the sake of of what defines Europe.”

    That’s quite an audacious feat of historical distortion.

    The motives for such re-writing of history are obvious. Germany can unburden some of its war guilt for terrorizing Europe with its fascist genocide.

    By implicating the Soviets in Nazi horror, the Americans and their rightwing surrogates in Poland and the Baltic states can breath some air into the stale, breathless claims of “Russian aggression” towards modern-day Europe. That twist is especially odious given that the Soviet Union suffered the most out of any nation from Nazi barbarity, with up to 25 million dead and tens of millions more wounded.

    Poland has perhaps the most to gain from falsifying history. Its own shameful past of colluding with the Nazi regime before and during the war is, it is anticipated, whitewashed and shoved down the memory hole.

    The people lining up to disparage Russia over alleged Soviet complicity with Nazi Germany claim, ironically, that Putin is “rewriting history” by referring to Soviet records and propaganda.

    One of the finest scholarly accounts of the period from the First World War until the late 1930s and the outbreak of war is the work by British historian AJP Taylor, entitled ‘The Origins of the Second World War’ (published 1961). Taylor is no “fellow-traveller” of the Soviet Union. His study is a consummate exercise in objective scholarship.

    The Russian perspective is substantially corroborated by Taylor (and other Western historians, see for example this recent essay by Michael Jabara Carley). The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact on the eve of the war’s outbreak was a desperate attempt by Moscow to keep the Third Reich at bay. Because, as Taylor points out, the Western powers, in particular Britain and France and Poland, had consistently rebuffed Soviet appeals to form a collective European security pact against Nazi Germany.

    Britain, France and Poland looked the other way when Hitler annexed Austria in 1936 and invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. The Fuhrer’s manifesto in ‘Mein Kampf’ and his various ranting speeches during the 1930s explicitly targeted the Soviet Union and European Jewry for annihilation in a Final Solution.

    Polish ministers during this period shared the Nazi contempt for Soviet and Jewish people. The case of Polish Ambassador in Berlin Josef Lipski proposing to Hitler in 1938 a scheme to deport European Jews to Africa is indisputable.

    What Polish authorities today are compelled to deny is the objective historical record which assigns complicity to their predecessors in unleashing the Nazi monster. The fact Auschwitz and other Nazi extermination camps are on Polish territory does not seem to give these virulent Russphobes any pause for thought. The fact that the Soviet Red Army saved millions of Poles from Nazi barbarity – a barbarity that their vain, deluded political leaders emboldened – is perhaps the clearest example of how “Lies Do Not Set You Free”.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 02:00

    Tags

  • US Navy To Revive Flak Cannons To Combat Drone Attacks
    US Navy To Revive Flak Cannons To Combat Drone Attacks

    The proliferation of unmanned aircraft has frightened the U.S. Navy into developing a powerful airburst round to knock drones out of the sky, reported Military.com

    The precision airburst munition, similar to anti-aircraft flak rounds used in World War II, is being designed to combat drones that are targeting warships at sea. 

    The new round is compatible with the Littoral Combat Ship’s (LCS) 30mm deck gun. 

    “We’re looking at another round called the proximity round, which detects the drone as it approaches and then blows up,” Kevin Knowles, who works on Northrop Grumman’s LCS and unmanned surface vessel programs, said Tuesday at the Surface Navy Association conference. “It’s not a radar system, but it’s something similar. That’s what we’re looking at for drones.”

    Knowles said it’s nearly impossible to hit a drone with a solid round, that’s why the Navy is reviving old technology with a modern twist to combat unmanned aircraft. 

    The LCS has two Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm chain guns that can fire 100 to 200 rounds per minute. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last summer, Iran flew a drone, undetected, over a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group transiting the Strait of Hormuz. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Pentagon has tasked a 60-person team to develop new policies and find advanced weapons that can counter the increasing threat of drones worldwide. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 01:00

  • How The Military-Industrial Complex Gets Away With Murder In Contract After Contract
    How The Military-Industrial Complex Gets Away With Murder In Contract After Contract

    Authored by Mandy Smithberger via TomDispatch.com,

    Call it a colossal victory for a Pentagon that hasn’t won a war in this century, but not for the rest of us. Congress only recently passed and the president approved one of the largest Pentagon budgets ever. It will surpass spending at the peaks of both the Korean and Vietnam wars. As last year ended, as if to highlight the strangeness of all this, the Washington Post broke a story about a “confidential trove of government documents” — interviews with key figures involved in the Afghan War by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction — revealing the degree to which senior Pentagon leaders and military commanders understood that the war was failing. Yet, year after year, they provided “rosy pronouncements they knew to be false,” while “hiding unmistakable evidence that the war had become unwinnable.”

    However, as the latest Pentagon budget shows, no matter the revelations, there will be no reckoning when it comes to this country’s endless wars or its military establishment — not at a moment when President Donald Trump is sending yet more U.S. military personnel into the Middle East and has picked a new fight with Iran. No less troubling: how few in either party in Congress are willing to hold the president and the Pentagon accountable for runaway defense spending or the poor performance that has gone with it.

    Given the way the Pentagon has sunk taxpayer dollars into those endless wars, in a more reasonable world that institution would be overdue for a comprehensive audit of all its programs and a reevaluation of its expenditures. (It has, by the way, never actually passed an audit.) According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, Washington has already spent at least $2 trillion on its war in Afghanistan alone and, as the Post made clear, the corruption, waste, and failure associated with those expenditures was (or at least should have been) mindboggling.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, little of this was news to people who had read the damning reports released by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in previous years. They included evidence, for instance, that somewhere between $10 million and $43 million had been spent constructing a single gas station in the middle of nowhere, that $150 million had gone into luxury private villas for Americans who were supposed to be helping strengthen Afghanistan’s economy, and that tens of millions more were wasted on failed programs to improve Afghan industries focused on extracting more of the country’s minerals, oil, and natural gas reserves.

    In the face of all this, rather than curtailing Pentagon spending, Congress continued to increase its budget, while also supporting a Department of Defense slush fund for war spending to keep the efforts going. Still, the special inspector general’s reports did manage to rankle American military commanders (unable to find successful combat strategies in Afghanistan) enough to launch what, in effect, would be a public-relations war to try to undermine that watchdog’s findings.

    All of this, in turn, reflected the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex that President (and former five-star General) Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about in his memorable 1961 farewell address. That complex only continues to thrive and grow almost six decades later, as contractor profits are endlessly prioritized over what might be considered the national security interests of the citizenry.

    The infamous “revolving door” that regularly ushers senior Pentagon officials into defense-industry posts and senior defense-industry figures into key positions at the Pentagon (and in the rest of the national security state) just adds to the endless public-relations offensives that accompany this country’s forever wars. After all, the retired generals and other officials the media regularly looks to for expertise are often essentially paid shills for the defense industry. The lack of public disclosure and media discussion about such obvious conflicts of interest only further corrupts public debate on both the wars and the funding of the military, while giving the arms industry the biggest seat at the table when decisions are made on how much to spend on war and preparations for the same.

    Media Analysis Brought to You by the Arms Industry

    That lack of disclosure regarding potential conflicts of interest recently came into fresh relief as industry boosters beat the media drums for war with Iran. Unfortunately, it’s a story we’ve seen many times before. Back in 2008, for instance, in a Pulitzer Prize-winning series, the New York Times revealed that the Pentagon had launched a program to cultivate a coterie of retired-military-officers-turned-pundits in support of its already disastrous war in Iraq. Seeing such figures on TV or reading their comments in the press, the public may have assumed that they were just speaking their minds. However, the Timesinvestigation showed that, while widely cited in the media and regularly featured on the TV news, they never disclosed that they received special Pentagon access and that, collectively, they had financial ties to more than 150 Pentagon contractors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Given such financial interests, it was nearly impossible for them to be “objective” when it came to this country’s failing war in Iraq. After all, they needed to secure more contracts for their defense-industry employers. A subsequent analysis by the Government Accountability Office found that the Pentagon’s program raised “legitimate questions” about how its public propaganda efforts were tied to the weaponry it bought, highlighting “the possibility of compromised procurements resulting from potential competitive advantages” for those who helped them.

    While the program was discontinued that same year, a similar effort was revealed in 2013 during a debate over whether the U.S. should attack Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. You probably won’t be surprised to discover that most of the former military figures and officials used as analysts at the time supported action against Syria. A review of their commentary by the Public Accountability Initiative found a number of them also had undisclosed ties to the arms industry. In fact, of 111 appearances in major media outlets by 22 commentators, only 13 of them disclosed any aspect of their potential conflicts of interest that might lead them to promote war.

    The same pattern is now being repeated in the debate over the Trump administration’s decision to assassinate by drone Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani and other Iran-related issues. While Suleimani clearly opposed the United States and many of its national security interests, his killing risked pushing Washington into another endless war in the Middle East. And in a distinctly recognizable pattern, the Intercept has already found that the air waves were subsequently flooded by defense-industry pundits praising the strike. Unsurprisingly, news of a potential war also promptly boosted defense industry stocks. Northrop Grumman’s, Raytheon’s, and Lockheed Martin’s all started 2020 with an uptick.

    Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) have offered legislation that could shut down that revolving door between the major weapons makers and Washington for good, but it has met concerted resistance from Pentagon officials and others still in Congress who stand to benefit from preserving the system as is. Even if that revolving door wasn’t shut down, transparency about just who was going through it would help the public better understand what former officials and military commanders are really advocating for when they speak positively of the necessity for yet another war in the Middle East.

    Costly Weapons (and Well-Paid Lobbyists)

    Here’s what we already know about how it all now works: weapon systems produced by the big defense firms with all those retired generals, former administration officials, and one-time congressional representatives on their boards (or lobbying for or consulting for them behind the scenes) regularly come in overpriced, are often delivered behind schedule, and repeatedly fail to have the capabilities advertised. Take, for instance, the new Ford class aircraft carriers, produced by Huntington Ingalls Industries, the sort of ships that have traditionally been used to show strength globally. In this case, however, the program’s development has been stifled by problems with its weapons elevators and the systems used to launch and recover its aircraft. Those problems have been costly enough to send the price for the first of those carriers soaring to $13.1 billion. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet fighter, the most expensive weapons system in Pentagon history, has an abysmal rate of combat readiness and currently comes in at more than $100 million per aircraft.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And yet, somehow, no one ever seems to be responsible for such programmatic failures and prices — certainly not the companies that make them (or all those retired military commanders sitting on their boards or working for them). One crucial reason for this lack of accountability is that key members of Congress serving on committees that should be overseeing such spending are often the top recipients of campaign contributions from the big weapons makers and their allies. And just as at the Pentagon, members of those committees or their staff often later become lobbyists for those very federal contractors.

    With this in mind, the big defense firms carefully spread their contracts for weapons production across as many congressional districts as possible. This practice of “political engineering,” a term promoted by former Department of Defense analyst and military reformer Chuck Spinney, helps those contractors and the Pentagon buy off members of Congress from both parties. Take, for example, the Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel meant to operate close to shore. Costs for the program tripled over initial estimates and, according to Defense News, the Navy is already considering decommissioning four of the new ships next year as a cost-saving measure. It’s not the first time that program has been threatened with the budget axe. In the past, however, pork-barrel politics spearheaded by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), in whose states those boats were being built, kept the program afloat.

    The Air Force’s new bomber, the B-21, being built by Northrup Grumman, has been on a similar trajectory. Despite significant pressure from then-Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the Air Force refused in 2017 to make public or agree upon a contract price for the program. (It was a “cost-plus,” not a “fixed price” contract, after all.) It did, however, release the names of the companies providing components to the program, ensuring that relevant congressional representatives would support it, no matter the predictably spiraling costs to come.

    Recent polling indicates that such pork-barrel politics isn’t backed by the public, even when they might benefit from it. Asked whether congressional representatives should use the Pentagon’s budget to generate jobs in their districts, 77% of respondents rejected the notion. Two-thirds favored shifting such funds to sectors like healthcare, infrastructure, and clean energy that would, in fact, create significantly more jobs.

    And keep in mind that, in this big-time system of profiteering, hardware costs, however staggering, are just a modest part of the equation. The Pentagon spends about as much on what it calls “services” as it does on the weaponry itself and those service contracts are another major source of profits. For example, it’s estimated that the F-35 program will cost $1.5 trillion over the lifetime of the plane, but a trillion dollars of those costs will be for support and maintenance of the aircraft.

    Increasingly, this means contractors are able to hold the Pentagon hostage over a weapon’s lifetime, which means overcharges of just about every imaginable sort, including for labor. The Project On Government Oversight (where I work) has, for instance, been uncovering overcharges in spare parts since our founding, including an infamous $435 hammer back in 1983. I’m sad to report that what, in the 1980s, was a seemingly outrageous $640 plastic toilet-seat cover for military airplanes now costs an eye-popping $10,000. A number of factors help explain such otherwise unimaginable prices, including the way contractors often retain intellectual property rights to many of the systems taxpayers funded to develop, legal loopholes that make it difficult for the government to challenge wild charges, and a system largely beholden to the interests of defense companies.

    The most recent and notorious case may be TransDigm, a company that has purchased other companies with a monopoly on providing spare parts for a number of weapon systems. That, in turn, gave it power to increase the prices of parts with little fear of losing business — once, receiving 9,400% in excess profits for a single half-inch metal pin. An investigation by the House Oversight and Reform Committee found that TransDigm’s employees had been coached to resist providing cost or pricing information to the government, lest such overcharges be challenged.

    In one case, for instance, a subsidiary of TransDigm resisted providing such information until the government, desperate for parts for weapons to be used in Iraq and Afghanistan, was forced to capitulate or risk putting troops’ lives on the line. TransDigm did later repay the government $16 million for certain overcharges, but only after the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on the subject that shamed the company. As it happens, TransDigm’s behavior isn’t an outlier. It’s typical of many defense-related companies doing business with the government — about 20 major industry players, according to a former Pentagon pricing czar.

    A Recipe for Disaster

    For too long Congress has largely abdicated its responsibilities when it comes to holding the Pentagon accountable. You won’t be surprised to learn that most of the “acquisition reforms” it’s passed in recent years, which affect how the Department of Defense buys goods and services, have placed just about all real negotiating power in the hands of the big defense contractors. To add insult to injury, both parties of Congress continue to vote in near unanimity for increases in the Pentagon budget, despite 18-plus years of losing wars, the never-ending gross mismanagement of weapons programs, and a continued failure to pass a basic audit. If any other federal agency (or the contractors it dealt with) had a similar track record, you can only begin to imagine the hubbub that would ensue. But not the Pentagon. Never the Pentagon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A significantly reduced budget would undoubtedly increase that institution’s effectiveness by curbing its urge to throw ever more money at problems. Instead, an often bought-and-paid-for Congress continues to enable bad decision-making about what to buy and how to buy it. And let’s face it, a Congress that allows endless wars, terrible spending practices, and multiplying conflicts of interest is, as the history of the twenty-first century has shown us, a recipe for disaster.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/23/2020 – 00:05

    Tags

  • "The 2-Child Policy Has Failed": China's Birth Rate Hits Record Low As Growth Slows
    “The 2-Child Policy Has Failed”: China’s Birth Rate Hits Record Low As Growth Slows

    China finally abandoned its controversial one-child policy in November 2013. But more than six years later, millions of Chinese couples are still unwilling to have a second child. And that’s a huge problem for the Communist Party, whose legitimacy in the eyes of the public depends on its ability to deliver on promises of unbridled growth and prosperity.

    And who can blame them? Entrenched behaviors die hard, and after the government’s brutal treatment of citizens who defied its policy (which was initially imposed to ward off famine), we can sympathize with Chinese who simply believe that having two children isn’t in keeping with the fundamentals of patriotic socialism with Chinese characteristics.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But as the FT reported this week, issues of culture and perception aren’t the only reasons Chinese women are still refusing to have more than one child. As we reported last week, Chinese GDP growth slowed in 2019 to its weakest level in 29 years…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    …proving unequivocally that Beijing’s massive credit stimulus hasn’t done much, if any, good.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, official statistics agencies reported that China’s birth rate dropped to 1.05%, a record low. That’s equivalent to 10.5 births per thousand Chinese.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The UN expects China’s population, the largest of any country in the world, to start declining by the end of this decade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s the latest sign that the ‘two child policy’ is now considered an abysmal failure – so much so that party functionaries are apparently unafraid of discussing this fact with the Western press.

    Weng Wenlei, vice-president of the Shanghai Women’s Federation, a government body, said birth rates in Shanghai had plunged despite efforts to relax China’s population control. She said births in the city had fallen “swiftly” following a brief recovery in 2016, when China began allowing couples to have two children.

    “This suggests [the two-child policy] has failed to serve its intended purpose,” said Ms Weng. “Consistently low birth rate will have a negative impact on Shanghai’s social and economic development.”

    Leftists in the US love to complain about the costs associated with having a baby, even for couples who have insurance. But even in a society where most of the people’s health-care needs are met by the state, Chinese citizens are still put off by the cost of care.

    Josephine Pan, a Shanghai-based data analyst, abandoned plans to have a second child after spending half of her family’s monthly salary of Rmb20,000 ($2,900) on her seven-year-old son. “It costs a fortune to raise a child,” said Ms Pan, 41, who after giving birth gave up her decade-long hobby of buying designer bags. “I couldn’t afford a second one.”

    Women in China are still reluctant to have children, even with the state promising cash handouts to couples who have two children, because they fear more children will hurt their careers.

    As in the west, a growing number of Chinese women are reluctant to have babies because they fear children would hurt their career. Chinese employers have a tradition of discriminating against pregnant workers as many female staff face demotion, if not unemployment, after returning from maternity leave.

    “I don’t want to risk my career to have a second child,” said Lucy Zhang, a Beijing-based newspaper editor with a five-year-old daughter. “I have worked so hard to get to where I am now.”

    All signs suggest that public sentiment is firmly entrenched against breeding. Surveys carried out in Shanghai and Shanxi province last year suggested that the number of women willing to have a second child is languishing between 10% and 25%. Furthermore, only 6.7% of women in Shanghai who are of child-bearing age and also possessed a local residence permit, or hukou, gave birth to a second child in 2018.

    “Raising a child takes so much time and energy,” said Mary Xu, a Shanghai-based magazine editor who has a three-year-old daughter. “I have had enough.”

    Though they are largely ignored or censored in the mainland press, China’s debt burden is already becoming unwieldy. Last month, a state-owned giant defaulted on a dollar bond, the largest default in two decades. But the issues of being over-leveraged aren’t strictly limited to the corporate sector. Local government financing vehicles are also in trouble.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China bulls in the west argue that the Communist Party exercises such an unshakeable hold on the economy that they simply won’t allow for a systemic debt cross-default. But as the party struggles to contain capital outflows, the country’s reliance on monetary stimulus is finally pushing up against the boundaries of what’s possible.

    To be sure, China isn’t the only country struggling with population shrinkage: 27 countries have fewer people now than in 2010. The UN expects 55 nations, including China, to experience declines between now and 2050. Most of these are countries have developed economies, a status that China has only recently achieved.

    A declining population places inevitable constraints on economic growth. And as China’s momentous rate of growth slows, its economy will come to resemble a frog sitting in a pot of water on a hot stove.

    For investors hoping to increase their exposure to China at a time of slowing growth, when the Chinese economy faces myriad difficulties, slowing population growth might create an opportunity in China’s domestic government bond market, according to one of WSJ’s Heard on the Street columnists.

    Numerous studies suggest that a shrinking population should cause real rates to fall. And of course we have a real-world example of this phenomenon in Japan, where government bond prices have never been higher. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily guarantee that the Chinese bond market will follow suit. But it’s certainly some worthwhile food for thought.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 23:45

  • Deadly Distractions: Laying The Groundwork For The Next Civil War
    Deadly Distractions: Laying The Groundwork For The Next Civil War

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    Pity the nation oh pity the people
    who allow their rights to erode
    and their freedoms to be washed away…”

    – Lawrence Ferlinghetti, poet

    And so it continues.

    This impeachment fiasco is merely the latest in a never-ending series of distractions, distortions, and political theater aimed at diverting the public’s attention from the sinister advances of the American Police State.

    Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted, diverted or mesmerized by the cheap theater tricks.

    This impeachment spectacle is Shakespearean in its scope: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Nothing is the key word here.

    Despite the wall-to-wall media coverage, nothing will change.

    Mark my words: the government will remain as corrupt and self-serving as ever, dominated by two political factions that pretend to be at odds with each other all the while moving in lockstep to maintain the status quo.

    So President Trump’s legal team can grandstand all they want about the impeachment trial being “an affront to the Constitution” and “a dangerous perversion of the Constitution,” but that’s just smoke and mirrors.

    You know what is really “an affront to the Constitution”? The U.S. government.

    We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

    The republic has fallen.

    The Deep State’s plot to take over America has succeeded.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The American system of representative government has been overthrown by a profit-driven, militaristic, corporate oligarchy bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad.

    Even now, we are being pushed and prodded towards a civil war, not because the American people are so divided but because that’s how corrupt governments control a populace (i.e., divide and conquer).

    These are dangerous times.

    These are indeed dangerous times but not because of violent crime, which remains at an all-time low, or because of terrorism, which is statistically rare, or because the borders are being invaded by foreign armies, which data reports from the Department of Homeland Security refute.

    No, the real danger that we face comes from none other than the U.S. government and the powers it has granted to its standing armies to rob, steal, cheat, harass, detain, brutalize, terrorize, torture and kill American citizens with immunity.

    The danger “we the people” face comes from masked invaders on the government payroll who crash through our doors in the dark of night, shoot our dogs, and terrorize our families.

    This danger comes from militarized henchmen on the government payroll who demand absolute obedience, instill abject fear, and shoot first and ask questions later.

    This danger comes from greedy, power-hungry bureaucrats on the government payroll who have little to no understanding of their constitutional limits.

    This danger comes from greedy politicians and corporations for whom profit trumps principle.

    You want to know about the state of our union? It’s downright scary.

    Consider, if you will, all of the dastardly, devious, diabolical, dangerous, debilitating, deceitful, dehumanizing, demonic, depraved, dishonorable, disillusioning, discriminatory, dictatorial schemes inflicted on “we the people” by a bureaucratic, totalitarian regime that has long since ceased to be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

    Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later, such as the 16-year-old teenager who skipped school only to be shot by police after they mistook him for a fleeing burglar. Then there was the unarmed black man in Texas “who was pursued and shot in the back of the neck by Austin Police… after failing to properly identify himself and leaving the scene of an unrelated incident.” And who could forget the 19-year-old Seattle woman who was accidentally shot in the leg by police after she refused to show her hands? What is increasingly common, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.

    Americans are little more than pocketbooks to fund the police state. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Rubbing salt in the wound, even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.

    Americans are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We once operated under the assumption that you were innocent until proven guilty. Due in large part to rapid advances in technology and a heightened surveillance culture, the burden of proof has been shifted so that the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty has been usurped by a new norm in which all citizens are suspects. This is exemplified by police practices of stopping and frisking people who are merely walking down the street and where there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Likewise, by subjecting Americans to full-body scans and license-plate readers without their knowledge or compliance and then storing the scans for later use, the government—in cahoots with the corporate state—has erected the ultimate suspect society. In such an environment, we are all potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other.

    Americans no longer have a right to self-defense. In the wake of various shootings in recent years, “gun control” has become a resounding theme. Those advocating gun reform see the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applying only to government officials. As a result, even Americans who legally own firearms are being treated with suspicion and, in some cases, undue violence. In one case, a Texas man had his home subjected to a no-knock raid and was shot in his bed after police, attempting to deliver a routine search warrant, learned that he was in legal possession of a firearm. In another incident, a Florida man who was licensed to carry a concealed firearm found himself detained for two hours during a routine traffic stop in Maryland while the arresting officer searched his vehicle in vain for the man’s gun, which he had left at home. Incidentally, the Trump Administration has done more to crack down on Second Amendment rights than anything the Obama Administration ever managed.

    Americans no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

    Americans no longer have a say about what their children are exposed to in school. Incredibly, the government continues to insist that parents essentially forfeit their rights when they send their children to a public school. This growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the children’s constitutional rights and those of their parents, is reflected in the debate over sex education programs that expose young people to all manner of sexual practices and terminology, zero tolerance policies that strip students of any due process rights, let alone parental involvement in school discipline, and Common Core programs that teach students to be test-takers rather than critical thinkers.

    Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, citizens were considered equals with law enforcement officials. Authorities were rarely permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And it was not uncommon for police officers to be held personally liable for trespass when they wrongfully invaded a citizen’s home. Unlike today, early Americans could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant—which the police had to allow citizens to read before arresting them. (Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons and tasers would be nothing short of suicidal.) As police forces across the country continue to be transformed into outposts of the military, with police agencies acquiring military-grade hardware in droves, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield.

    Americans no longer have a right to bodily integrity. Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Accounts are on the rise of individuals—men and women—being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops. Remember the New Mexico man who was subjected to a 12-hour ordeal of anal probes, X-rays, enemas, and finally a colonoscopy—all because he allegedly rolled through a stop sign?

    Americans no longer have a right to the expectation of privacy. Despite the staggering number of revelations about government spying on Americans’ phone calls, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, Google searches, emails, bookstore and grocery purchases, bank statements, commuter toll records, etc., Congress, the president and the courts have done little to nothing to counteract these abuses. Instead, they seem determined to accustom us to life in this electronic concentration camp.

    Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the justices of the Supreme Court have become the architects of the American police state in which we now live, while the lower courts have appointed themselves courts of order, concerned primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal.

    Americans no longer have a representative government. We have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age, let’s call it the age of authoritarianism. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups. It is not overstating matters to say that Congress, which has done its best to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance, may well be the most self-serving, semi-corrupt institution in America.

    In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism: a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled. Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes. Sound familiar? Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests. We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism. Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many.

    History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a totalitarian state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom. Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become America’s new normal. From Clinton to Bush, then Obama and now Trump, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.

    Elections will not save us.

    I haven’t even touched on the corporate state, the military industrial complex, SWAT team raids, invasive surveillance technology, zero tolerance policies in the schools, overcriminalization, or privatized prisons, to name just a few, but what I have touched on should be enough to show that the landscape of our freedoms has already changed dramatically from what it once was and will no doubt continue to deteriorate unless Americans can find a way to wrest back control of their government and reclaim their freedoms.

    There can be no denying that the world is indeed a dangerous place, but what the president and his cohorts fail to acknowledge is that it’s the government that poses the gravest threat to our freedoms and way of life, and no amount of politicking, parsing or pandering will change that.

    It is easy to be diverted, distracted and amused by the antics of politicians, the pomp and circumstance of awards shows, athletic events, and entertainment news, and the feel-good, wrapped-in-the-flag evangelism that passes for religion today.

    What is far more difficult to face up to is the reality of life in America, where unemployment, poverty, inequality, injustice and violence by government agents are increasingly norms, and where “we the people” are at a distinct disadvantage in the face of the government elite’s power grabs, greed and firepower.

    The Constitution doesn’t stand a chance against a federalized, globalized standing army protected by legislative, judicial and executive branches that are all on the same side, no matter what political views they subscribe to: suffice it to say, they are not on our side or the side of freedom.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the powers-that-be want us to remain distracted, divided, alienated from each other based on our politics, our bank accounts, our religion, our race and our value systems. Yet as George Orwell observed, “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

    You either believe in freedom or you don’t. It’s that simple.

    Everything else is just a deadly distraction. As Orwell observed in 1984:

    “All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 23:25

    Tags

  • Automation Nation: Walmart Deploys Robots To 650 Additional Stores
    Automation Nation: Walmart Deploys Robots To 650 Additional Stores

    America’s largest retailer/employer is adding shelf-scanning robots to 650 more stores by August, expanding its total robotic fleet to 1,000 stores, reported Bloomberg.

    Walmart’s push for robots comes at a time when labor-costs are eating into profits. The company will have trouble passing increased costs to consumers; it will have to embrace automation on the front and back end of stores to drive labor costs lower, which will, in return, lead to a significant amount of its workforce slashed by 2030. 

    The U.S. unemployment rate lingers at several decades low and risks reversing as rising employment costs have led to a decline in job openings at the start of 2020. This could suggest the labor market has lost momentum, and rising costs have forced employers to stop hiring. Like Walmart, other companies will have to adopt automation and artificial intelligence to replace low-skilled workers to drive costs down.

    C-suite executives at Walmart are ahead of the trend, some have argued they’re creating the trend, with the widespread adoption of robots in stores. 

    Already, the retailer has robots in its order fulfillment centercleaning floors on the front-end of stores, and unloading delivery trucks. 

    The latest one is a six-foot-tall shelf-scanning robot equipped with 15 cameras that checks if products on shelves need restocking. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    CEO Doug McMillon has said automation in stores is a way to improve store performance and lower labor costs.

    Walmart has adopted automation in stores for the last decade — most of the 4,750 U.S. stores have self-checkout kiosks, doing away with humans ringing up items for customers. 

    A recent report via McKinsey & Co. found about 50% of all retail jobs will be slashed in the coming years because of automation. 

    As we’ve mentioned before, automation will displace at least 20 million U.S. jobs by 2030, with food service, retail, transportation, and warehousing being the industries most affected with job losses. 

    If you’re currently employed in one of these industries – now would be the time to get reskilled for a high-demanding job.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 23:05

  • Nearly 5 Times As Many Police Officers Killed Themselves Than Were Shot In 2019
    Nearly 5 Times As Many Police Officers Killed Themselves Than Were Shot In 2019

    Authored by Matt Agorist via The Free Thought Project,

    In 2019, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page, 47 police officers were shot, 7 killed in a vehicular assault, and three died from assault. Another 77 cops died as a result of car crashes, heart attacks, and illnesses. Absent from the database of fallen officers, however, are the 228 cops who ended their own watch. This number is a giant leap from the year before and the fourth consecutive year that it’s risen.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As the number of officers killed in the line of duty decreased by 20%, the number of cops taking their own lives has increased 35%. The website Blue H.E.L.P. (Honor. Educate. Lead. Prevent.) has already recorded five officer suicides in 2020.

    The mainstream media often portrays the unfortunate random killing of police officers as analogous to a larger “war on cops.” The reality is that there is a concerted public relations effort underway, on the part of law enforcement, with the intention of stemming the growing public calls for more oversight and accountability.

    If law enforcement were genuine about wanting to save the lives of cops, they would begin by attempting to put focus on the out of control epidemic of police suicides, which dwarfs the number of cops fatally shot the line of duty. Cops are killing themselves at a rate 4 times higher than they are dying in the line of duty and this subject seems entirely taboo.

    Over the past three decades, the number of on-duty police killings has decreased substantially. Instead of attempting to fix the glaring problems in policing, law enforcement has invested itself in attempting to distract and divide the public. With the help of mainstream media, they attempt to portray themselves as victims of a rabid and out of control anti-police campaign which is violently and systematically targeting cops. But this is simply not true.

    If people really care about cops, then it’s incumbent upon them to focus on the true threats to officers’ lives and not just buy into the spin machine.

    The public must realize the dire situation, and extreme scope of the mental health epidemic currently facing law enforcement. There’s an extremely high rate of suicide, a domestic violence crisis and much higher rates of addiction in policing than the general public. It’s clear that the mental health issues affecting law enforcement should be a top priority if we hope to stem the number of citizens and cops being killed by police in America.

    In an interview with The Free Thought Project, former LAPD officer Alex Salazar pointed out why many of his friends ended their own lives:

    People are tired of being killed by these cops. They operate with a gang-like mentality similar to the military, in that they are pawns in a larger game, but perceive themselves as warriors for a righteous cause. Cops often turn to suicide after they lose control of their personal lives. They are taught to be control freaks and to be always be in control and it often ends in tragedy.

    When I was a LAPD officer I had at least 6 partners and supervisors included who “ate” their guns. This police propaganda crap is occurring because they’re desperate and cops backs are up against the wall. They will resort to ANY tactic or issue and use it to inflate the situation. I perceive in the not so distant future some of these cowboy “John Wayne” types will instigate a fear driven attack against activists.

    We have seen this fear driven attack play out many times over the years.

    This isn’t about ‘us vs. them,’ or attacking police; it’s about the necessity of purging a critical sickness from U.S. policing in an effort make the streets a safer place for citizens and police alike.

    We need to start looking at this increasing rate of officer suicides and realize the underlying problems attributing to them. If we can begin to correct those problems, the cops shooting citizens rate may start to fall too.

    According to other experts in the field, cumulative exposure to trauma, horrific accidents and shootings can lead to mental health struggles that too often go untreated. A report by Blue H.E.L.P. reveals the rate of PTSD and depression for police and firefighters is five times higher than the civilian population.

    A report commissioned by the Ruderman Family Foundation showed that officers’ highest risk of death is by suicide with most deaths in California and Texas.

    Critics believe the lack of resources for mental health also adds to lives being lost. Mental health experts say the barrier that keeps officers from seeking help are shame, fear of being off the job and the stigma behind it. Perhaps if cops were better trained at dealing with their own mental health issues, they’d be less likely to kill those with similar problems.

    *  *  *

    If you know a police officer who is experiencing this, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline can be reached at 1-800-273-8255. Police officers can also text the word “blue” to 741741 or simply text “talk” to 741741.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 22:45

  • Goldman's CEO To DJ Super Bowl Party
    Goldman’s CEO To DJ Super Bowl Party

    Just when you thought it couldn’t get more bizarre, the CEO of Goldman Sachs – who has been making a solid effort to appear as one of “the humans” with his recent push to hand every subprime consumer an Apple co-branded credit card – David Solomon is going to be DJing the world’s largest sporting event: the Super Bowl.

    According to Bloomberg, the 58-year-old “DJ D-Sol” will be the featured DJ at party tied to the Super Bowl that’s being hosted by Sports Illustrated. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    No longer urging his clients to invest in “shitty deals” – as his predecessor Lloyd Blankfein infamously did – the 58 year old Solomon will be spinning “electronic dance music” at the party. And it won’t be Solomon’s first big gig: Last month he was spinning at an Amazon.com cloud conference.

    Goldman Sachs has confirmed that Solomon – whose musical passion we profiled in this 2018 note – will be there. Two years ago we noted that the multi-millionaire moonlighted as a D.J. once a month and that his biography on Spotify — where he recently released his first single, a remix of the Fleetwood Mac tune “Don’t Stop” — says, “His personal mantra is to never lose sight of what you are passionate about.”

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Great to get some time on the decks at #theEMAwards.

    A post shared by DJ D-Sol (@djdsolmusic) on Sep 23, 2017 at 8:32am PDT

    //www.instagram.com/embed.js


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 22:25

  • Homeland Security Chief Warns Caravan Migrants Will Be Sent Home If They Reach US
    Homeland Security Chief Warns Caravan Migrants Will Be Sent Home If They Reach US

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

    The head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees immigration enforcement, warned a new caravan of Central American migrants that they won’t be allowed into the United States.

    Being part of a large group, like a caravan, provides no special treatment or benefits to those who participate. Unfortunately, there have been acts of reported violence by some involved in this caravan,” acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf said in a statement. “The Department is prioritizing the safety and security of our officers and the American people.”

    “Should any members of the caravan reach the U.S.-Mexico border, they will be processed accordingly and quickly removed, returned, or repatriated,” he added.

    His warning comes a day after Mexican police clashed with hundreds of migrantswho were attempting to enter Mexico from Guatemala, according to reports.

    “Yesterday there was a group of some 1,000 who tried to enter the country by force. A tragedy was avoided, because there can always be a lot of problems, above all when there are children and women,” Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told CNN

    “Despite the stones [National Guard personnel] were hit with, and a very tense situation, we can say that yesterday, if someone had the intention to provoke, they did not achieve that,” Ebrard said.

    “If someone is looking for violence in Mexico, they are not going to find it on the part of authorities.”

    As reported by NPR, the migrants are in Mexico and are being prevented from traveling through the country by Mexican National Guard members in riot gear.The Guatemalan government confirmed that around 4,000 migrants entered the country from Honduras.

    One migrant told the news outlet:

    “Our goal is to go to the United States. We aren’t turning around here.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
     

    In his statement Wednesday, Wolf praised Mexican authorities’ measures to increase security at their southern border.

    I commend the government of Mexico for upholding their commitment to increased security and law enforcement at their southern border. The efforts by the Mexican National Guard and other officials have thus far been effective at maintaining the integrity of their border, despite outbreaks of violence and lawlessness by people who are attempting to illegally enter Mexico on their way to the United States,” Wolf said.

    His agency is monitoring the caravan, adding that there are “dozens of personnel on the ground in Central America assisting local immigration and security officials, which have already led to hundreds of individuals being stopped, apprehended, and sent back to their home countries.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 22:05

  • Starbucks Dairy-Shames Customers Into Skipping 'Environmentally Unfriendly' Whipped Cream
    Starbucks Dairy-Shames Customers Into Skipping ‘Environmentally Unfriendly’ Whipped Cream

    Starbucks released the results of its latest sweeping ‘sustainability’ audit and announced plans to become ‘resource positive’ late Tuesday, prompting analysts to ask: What, exactly, does that mean?

    And although the company and many of its institutional shareholders have made a big deal about Starbucks’ sustainability rhetoric and celebrated its decision to phase out plastic straws to save the sea turtles, on Wednesday, investors shunned Starbucks shares (they were down more than 1%) as the company unveiled what Bloomberg described as its “ambitious goals” to reduce the environmental footprint that produces more waste every year to equal two Empire State buildings.

    To wit, by 2030, the cafe chain is targeting 50% reductions in the amount of water it uses, the carbon it emits and trash it sends to landfills.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In “A Message From Starbucks’ CEO”, a blog post published Tuesday evening, CEO Kevin Johnson regaled readers with a history of Starbucks’ commitment to environmental responsibility, while rattling off a list of accomplishments.

    But in the report, which was analyzed by Bloomberg, Starbucks’ hired environmental consultants warned customers that the best thing they could do to reduce the company’s harmful impact on the planet would be to buy cheaper drinks, and forego the milk.

    That’s right: Instead of buying fancy frappucinos and indulgent espresso-based desserts, customers would do better to buy simple plain black espresso.

    And if customers must have the frappucino, they should think about skipping the whipped cream.

    Adding whipped cream to millions of Starbucks Corp. drinks emits 50 times as much greenhouse gas as the company’s private jet. Overall, dairy products are the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions across the coffee giant’s operations and supply chain.

    As far as what Starbucks corporate can accomplish, the task does seem daunting.

    The task is immense: Starbucks in 2018 was responsible for emitting 16 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, using 1 billion cubic meters of water and dumping 868 metric kilotons – more than twice the weight of the Empire State Building – of coffee cups and other waste. The audit was conducted with sustainability consultant Quantis and the World Wildlife Fund.

    And Johnson admits that Starbucks can’t achieve its goals alone: It needs its customers to change their behavior as well.

    “We know this journey will be challenging, we know we can’t do this alone, and we know this will require others to join us,” Chief Executive Officer Kevin Johnson said in an interview.

    Using data from the Starbucks audit, Bloomberg broke down how each business segment contributes to the company’s overall carbon footprint.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    During its last annual shareholders meeting, Starbucks shareholders nearly passed a resolution calling on the company to step up the use of sustainable packaging. The motion received the support of nearly half the shareholders present.

    “While Starbucks has a long road ahead to achieve these goals, we’re encouraged that its priorities are rooted in transparent data and will be supplemented by first-of-its-kind market research,” said Allan Pearce, shareholder advocate at Trillium Asset Management.

    With its goal of becoming ‘resource positive’, Starbucks, which has more than 31,000 outlets in more than 80 markets, has become just the latest American megacorp corporation to seemingly bull a glitzy-sounding climate buzzword out of a hat: Recently, Amazon vowed to be ‘carbon neutral’, and Microsoft promised to be ‘carbon negative’ – prompting critics to criticize their promises as a meaningless pr stunt.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 21:45

  • Bitcoin Is Quantitatively Tightening
    Bitcoin Is Quantitatively Tightening

    Authored by Peter Earle via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    On May 2020, bitcoin (BTC) will see its next halving: the reduction of the reward for successfully mining a block. The Nakamoto white paper specifies that every 210,000 blocks, the reward for successfully mining a block is cut by half. But while these halvings occur roughly every four years (with the estimated reward dropping to one Satoshi on or around the year 2140), the Bitcoin Halvening of 2020 is particularly momentous. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At present, the reward for mining a block is 12.5 BTC; in May, the reward for successfully adding a block to the blockchain will drop to 6.25 BTC per block. The current annualized rate of “inflation” (some disambiguation regarding this later) is between 3.7 percent and 3.8 percent: an average of 144 blocks mined per day at 12.5 BTC each, yielding approximately 1,800 new BTC each day. 

    (A quick point of disambiguation: To describe the expansion in size of bitcoin’s outstanding number of coins as inflation — what might be called the “float” in equities or the “money stock” in more conventional currencies — is consistent with an older definition; in the same sense, new gold being mined is, with respect to the existing, above-ground gold stock, “inflationary.” But today, the term inflation is used to describe, and assumed to mean, an increase in general price levels within an economy. In fact, from the perspective that with increasing value one bitcoin buys more over time, it is indisputably deflationary.)

    What’s noteworthy about this point is that, upon this particular halving, bitcoin “inflating” at a roughly 1.8 percent rate annually will nominally — and by then, quite possibly in real terms — be “inflating” at a rate lower than both the Federal Reserve target of 2 percent per year and current, CPI-based estimates of real U.S. inflation of 1.9 percent annually.

    Testing on Human Beings; No Institutional Review Board Required

    In light of the broader field of monetary policy worldwide, the upcoming Halvening will come at a particularly auspicious juncture. Despite considerable efforts over more than a decade, the Federal Reserve (and other central banks) has attempted and failed to engineer a rate of inflation (in the case of the Federal Reserve, of 2 percent) even after vastly expanding the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and undertaking numerous other expansionary programs.

    Even casual observers of global central banking practice will note that the apparent inability of the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and other such institutions to manufacture inflation has not led to some newfound respect (let alone humility) in light of their demonstrated lack of understanding of so powerful a force. Even a cursory review of history reveals that inflation is second only to war where forces laying waste to civilizations are considered.

    To the contrary: Legions of economists within these (usually) quasi-public entities have redoubled their efforts, embracing unconventional policy implementations, the most recent and well-known of which are sequential phases of quantitative easing. Whether Federal Reserve economists have forgotten or don’t care that billions of real human beings toil beneath their policy machinations is an exercise for the reader to consider. 

    Indeed, despite scores of warnings about the alleged dangers of low inflation, the drumbeat of statistics and other reports citing the deteriorating character of U.S. household finances leads one to question exactly what impact the Federal Reserve thinks that raising prices by several percentage points would have on tens of millions of families.

    Contrarily, bitcoin’s limited supply has always been a draw for investors and spenders cognizant of the effects of inflation on purchasing power. With the rate of production of bitcoin via mining taking place at a rate less than the Federal Reserve’s stated target rate (and possibly less than the real rate of inflation), in May 2020, bitcoin may have economically incontestable reasons to become a legitimately competitive store of value versus most of the other world currencies. Part of that, of course, hinges critically upon price volatility.

    Quantitative Easing versus Tightening

    One may argue — I certainly am — that by algorithmically limiting the ultimate number of bitcoin that will ever exist, and further by making their origination (via mining) adhere to a predictable, transparent, and decrementing character, bitcoin (and more specifically the Hashcash proof-of-work protocol) closely approximates a monetary policy implementation known as qualitative tightening. That is to say, economically speaking, it is the diametric opposite of the qualitative-easing campaign that central banks are continuing to tinker with, at our peril.

    This will undoubtedly add to its attractiveness and, barring the outbreak of extreme volatility, will likely increase its store-of-value characteristics. Many people believe that the Halvening of 2020 will spark a new uptrend in price, but that is far from certain. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Although the market for bitcoin (and cryptocurrencies, more generally) is more liquid and transparent now than it was at the last halving, much, if not all, of the effect may already be priced in. Sentiment surrounding bitcoin has cooled in the last 18 to 24 months, and the entire crypto complex has traded differently since BTC futures contracts were introduced on the Chicago Board Options Exchange and subsequently cancelled (although they continue to trade on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange). 

    The Bitcoin Halvening of 2020: Compelling Prospects 

    There are plenty of reasons for which the arrival of bitcoin (and cryptocurrencies broadly) as an asset class a bit over a decade ago has been a most fortuitous development, not least of which is the increasingly experimental bent of central banks around the world. Alongside that are political candidates endorsing central planning and, to accomplish them, stooping to embrace outlandish monetary theories. 

    Add to those reasons not only an algorithmically scheduled, predictable rate of inflation (again, in the antiquarian sense), but rates that are lower than both nominal and real rates of inflation, and bitcoin’s use case begins to look increasingly less speculative.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 21:25

  • US Troops Seen Blocking Russians From Syrian Oilfields In Series Of Dangerous Standoffs
    US Troops Seen Blocking Russians From Syrian Oilfields In Series Of Dangerous Standoffs

    Yet another dangerous incident has played out between American and Russian forces operating in Syria in what appears a series of standoffs near key oil installations since Saturday. “This is the third incident that occurred within a week,” one local reporter told VOA in an alarming report.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image source: journalist Mohammed Hassan 

    Days ago we reported on the first incident involving a US convoy blocking a Russian convoy on a highway near the town of Rmelan, after the Americans were apparently concerned the Russians were going to enter an oil field, which the US administration says it has “secured”. 

    But now Voice of America reports three total incidents, with the most recent ones happening Tuesday and Wednesday in al-Hasakah province, as newly detailed by the opposition outlet Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image source: journalist Mohammed Hassan 

    All of the incidents involved US forces blocking Russian military vehicles and forcing them to turn around as they neared sensitive oil installations held by the US-backed Kurdish SDF and American special forces in Syria’s northeast. 

    One eyewitness reporter on the ground described the following:

    The incident on Tuesday is part of a series of similar incidents that happened in recent days between the two powers over their presence in Syria, local sources said. 

    “This is the third incident that occurred within a week,” said Nishan Mohammad, a local reporter who said he witnessed another recent standoff between U.S. and Russian troops in northeast Syria.

    “I was there last weekend when U.S. soldiers stopped Russian military vehicles and forced them to head back to their base,” he told VOA in a phone interview Tuesday.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    While none of these close encounters between two major powers on disputed soil resulted in exchange of gunfire, it presents a potentially deadly situation which could set off spiraling escalation between two superpowers.

    This is especially the case given the US and Russia now have small military installations dotting northern Syria in somewhat close proximity to one another.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Months ago US troops withdrew from some northernmost Syrian towns amid a Turkish military incursion.

    In some instances Russian forces immediately came in and took over the same installations, such as the sizable Sirrin Air Base in the northern Aleppo area.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    While it doesn’t appear Russia has any intent to “take the oil” like the White House has repeatedly pledged, Russian forces there do represent the interests of it’s ally Assad and the Syrian Army. 

    And as Trump continues talking up “securing the oil” — most recently at Davos Assad has simultaneously promised to retake all of sovereign Syria, especially the oil-rich Deir Ezzor and Hasakah provinces. 

    President Trump said while addressing reporters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Wednesday: “But very importantly, as you know, we have the oil. And we left soldiers for the oil, because we take the oil and we’re working on that, and we have it very nicely secured.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 21:05

  • Hunter Biden Ordered To Appear In Court Next Week For Contempt Hearing
    Hunter Biden Ordered To Appear In Court Next Week For Contempt Hearing

    Hunter Biden has been ordered to stand in front of an Arkansas judge next Tuedsay to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt of court for failing to produce a laundry list of financial and personal information in his ongoing child support dispute with stripper Lunden Alexis Roberts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Roberts asked the court on Tuesday to hold Biden in contempt for failing to disclose financial information, contact information, and “a list of all companies he currently owns or in which he has an ownership interest,” as well as “all companies in which he has had an ownership interest in the past five years.

    Also sought are a copy of Biden’s 2017 and 2018 tax returns, deeds to properties he owns, and an executed copy of a financial records release Biden has been avoiding filing unless the court allows him to do so under seal.

    “The defendant continues to act as though he has no respect for this Court, its orders, the legal process in this state, or the needs of his child for support,” reads the filing, which adds “This is but another example of the defendant’s unnecessary actions to frustrate prompt adjudication of this matter and increase the plaintiff’s litigation costs.

    Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer agreed, ordering Biden to appear in person to explain his failure to produce the requested information which was due in August, 2019.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In November, a DNA test revealed Hunter to be the father of the unnamed child with Roberts. In order to determine what Biden can cough up, Roberts has sought extensive financial records for periods which include his time on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was the Obama administration’s point-man on Ukraine.

    Hunter served on Burisma’s board from 2014 through 2018, while his father openly bragged about getting a prosecutor fired who was investigating the company’s founder for a variety of white-collar crimes.

    Hunter Biden did not receive any direct compensation from Burisma — rather, the Ukrainian company wired funds to Rosemont Seneca Bohai (RSB), an American firm controlled by Hunter Biden’s longtime business partner Devon Archer. Between June 2014 and October 2015, RSB wired a total of $708,302 to Hunter Biden for undisclosed purposes while RSB was receiving funds from Burisma.

    The IRS placed a tax lien on Hunter Biden for $112,805 in unpaid taxes from 2015, the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported. –Daily Caller

    While Congressional Democrats insist the entire affair was above board, and “debunked,” it is apparently too radioactive for lawmakers to delve into, despite the fact that it’s at the center of impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump – who withheld almost $400 million in US military aid to Ukraine while he was pushing for an investigation into the Bidens.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 20:45

  • China Slashes 2020 GDP Growth For Provinces As Widespread Slowdown Persists
    China Slashes 2020 GDP Growth For Provinces As Widespread Slowdown Persists

    With phase-one talks signed last week, China’s GDP growth in 2019 plunged to a 29-year low amid massive credit stimulus that has widely been ineffective to boost growth but has somewhat stabilized the economy. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s largest utility company State Grid has warned that the rate of economic growth in the country is expected to slide to 4% in the next four years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There was even a report on Tuesday showing China has already blamed the 2020 economic slowdown on the coronavirus epidemic that has already killed nine with at least 440 people infected in the country and spreading across the region, along with a new case in the U.S. 

    The Communist Party of China has been quick to blame the slowdown on external factors, such as the trade war and other protectionist policies of President Trump, rather than their failures of amassing more than $40 trillion of debt, nearly 304% of GDP.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Now we’re starting to get more local data, on a provincial level, that shows many regions and municipalities have cut their 2020 growth targets over the prior year, reported Reuters.

    About 22 provinces have slashed growth targets this year, including Beijing, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Henan, Hainan, and Fujian. 

    Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong have all cut their target of 6.5% to 6% growth to about 6% in 2020, in line with the national goal of 6%.

    Local government data shows at least 11 provinces have missed their 2019 growth targets and are expected to underperform this year.

    The northeastern province of Heilongjiang will range around 5% growth for this year, with the Tibet Autonomous Region to see about 9%. 

    Policy sources within China told Reuters that provinces would ramp up infrastructure spending to offset the slowdown. 

    “Much of the national slowdown last year was driven by exports which will have weighed on the south and east more,” said Julian Evans-Pritchard, senior China Economist at Capital Economics, in an email to Reuters.

    China’s GDP data is often skewed – and for more color on the country’s economic activity — Fathom Consulting’s China Momentum Indicator 3.0 (CMI 3.0) shows GDP growth well under 6% and stagnating.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 20:25

  • The College Degree Of The Richest Person In Every Country
    The College Degree Of The Richest Person In Every Country

    Via Resume.io,

    Money and education don’t always go hand-in-hand, but it doesn’t hurt to sway the odds in your favor by studying hard at college. However, sometimes choosing the most appropriate degree is the hardest part. It can be helpful to look for inspiration from people who have already become a success in your chosen industry.

    A few months back, we showed you the College Degree of the Top‑earning CEO in Every State. Now we’ve researched and compiled a list of the college degree taken by the richest person in every country around the world.

    The map we’ve created focuses on the undergraduate degrees that the world’s richest people have attained. There are instances where some of these people have attained qualifications without an undergraduate degree (e.g. Graeme Hart of New Zealand completed an MBA but has no undergrad degree, so is marked as ‘no undergrad degree’), but all people marked as ‘no degree’ have no higher-education qualifications at all. Some people also failed to complete their degree, they have been labelled as ‘incomplete’. There are also instances where a family is classed as a country’s ‘richest person’ and so we have labelled them according to their family’s cumulative qualifications (e.g. Croatia is marked as ‘multiple degrees’). In all instances we’ve tried to make the labelling as clear as possible, but for a more in-depth look check out our research here

    If you’re hoping your higher education is to be a stepping stone on the route to your first billion dollars, then check out the map below and see what undergrad degree is necessary to become one of the world’s richest people.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    1. North America

    The richest man in the United States is also the richest man in the world, but Jeff Bezos had a lean 2019. The Amazon boss’s divorce settlement made ex-wife MacKenzie one of the richest five women in America and the world, allowing Bill Gates to briefly topple Jeff from the top spot. Jeff studied Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Princeton, and MacKenzie studied English at the same institution a few years later.

    The tiny islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis boast USANA founder, Myron Wentz, as their richest person. However, he was born in the US and switched his citizenship for the tax haven of St. Kitts in the 1990s. This is a marked difference from the likes of Bill Gates, who once said, “I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    2. Europe

    Albania’s richest person, Samir Mane, didn’t make much use of his college degree when building his fortune. He began studying geology in Vienna in 1991 but quit during his first year. He later said, “basically I learned German there.” However, the language and cultural skills he picked up proved useful, as he built his business exporting cheap TVs and VCRs from Austria to his home country.

    Bulgaria’s richest person, Vasil Bojkov, has an interesting education. He attended Bulgaria’s National High School of Mathematics and used degrees in Applied Mathematics and Labor Economics to power-up his trading, insurance, and gambling businesses. But he also has a degree in History of Art from Universidad de Buenos Aires. Bojkov’s patronage of the arts is renowned, and his enjoyment of beauty and creativity is evident in his famed antique collection because an education isn’t all about getting rich!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    3. Africa

    Africa is a continent of vast contrasts. Economically, South Africa is the most unequal country in the world. In Nigeria, the five wealthiest people have a combined fortune that outweighs the national budget, while six out of ten people live on less than $1.25 per day. This disparity can be traced between different countries, too. For example, Nigeria’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, has a US$8.8 billion fortune against Liberia’s Benoni Urey, who has ‘just’ $32 million. 

    Both made a lot of money selling things everybody needs. Dangote took Business Studies and Administration, but got his first business lessons in the playground: “I can remember when I was in primary school, I would go and buy cartons of sweets [candy] and I would start selling them just to make money,” he says. His company now supplies 70% of Nigeria’s sugar. Urey studied General Science, and his business interests include housing and Liberia’s biggest cellphone network.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    4. Asia

    The richest person in almost every Asian country is of the ‘billionaire’ variety. The overall number one is India’s Mukesh Ambani, boss of his late father’s gas and oil company. Ambani’s education is on the science side of things rather than business: he studied chemical engineering. But that doesn’t mean he is afraid to branch out, and the company recently launched a 4G service. “Anything and everything that can go digital is going digital,” says Ambani. “India cannot afford to be left behind.”

    Taiwan, Thailand, China, and Brunei are among nations whose top billionaires have no degree at all. In some cases, wealth is inherited by royalty. But Li Ka-shing, China’s richest man and the 30th richest in the world, is a self-made plastics magnate who started his business with loans of just $6,500 when he was 21. He is known for his philanthropic work and recently pledged HK$1 billion ($127 million) to support businesses affected by the protests in Hong Kong.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    5. South America

    Iris Fontbona inherited husband Andrónico Luksic’s mining and beverage empire in 2005. But the world’s richest Latina has capitalized on the opportunity by driving the family business to ever-greater success. Fontbana has no degree but has significantly expanded the mines and brewery business as well as buying majority shares in the TV channel, Canal 13. 

    The richest person in South America (with $24.6 billion) is another brewer. Brazil’s Jorge Paulo Lemann has controlling shares in Anheuser-Busch InBev, the world’s largest brewer, which in turn owns Pilsner Urquell and Foster’s Lager. But he originated his fortune as founder of investment firm 3G Capital. His degree is in Economics from Harvard, which must make it easier to count all that money.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    6. Oceania

    Oceania’s richest person, the Australian Gina Rinehart, began studying economics at the University of Sydney but dropped out to get a hands-on education at her father’s iron ore mining business. She learned well from what she saw. When her father died, leaving behind a bankrupt estate, Rinehart turned around the family business’s fortunes, transforming it into one of Australia’s leading mining concerns.

    New Zealand’s Graeme Hart has earned an MBA from the University of Otago’s business school. Hart was admitted to the school without attaining an undergraduate degree and so in our map is marked  as having ‘no degree’.

    There aren’t many teachers on our list of the richest people list. But Papua New Guinea’s richest person – former prime minister Michael Somare – used his teaching qualification to inspire young minds at several primary and secondary schools before going into politics.

    When it comes to developing your career, your degree isn’t just about what you know – it’s about how your education makes you think. Sometimes the wisest choice is to pick a subject that will broaden your understanding of the world and to get your industry knowledge through work experience. How does your choice of degree relate to your choice of career? 

    Sources

    To see the research behind this project visit bit.ly/RichestPeoplesDegrees

    Methodology

    We began by researching the ‘richest person in X country,’ ‘wealthiest person in X’ and variations in French and Spanish, then sifted the first three pages of Google results. In all instances where articles existed that responded to the search term, there was a very clear consensus across the sources. The only divergence showed up between changes in the list over time (e.g., a list of the wealthiest people from 2017 versus a list from 2019). To find a back-up source, we’d search for ‘richest person in X’ followed by the name our initial search had thrown up.

    No distinction has been made between people from a country but resident elsewhere and people both from the country and resident there. We allowed both to qualify. To insist on determining individuals’ citizenship or residency would undoubtedly have increased the number of ‘No data’ entries, not least as the super-wealthy are rarely tied to one country.

    Note that the issue of wealth is a secretive one. Sometimes we could only find a small number of sources, and on occasion, footnotes for these sources were broken. In some other cases, sources claimed that a person was the richest (or made a claim as to their college degree), but the original source was not consistently backed up with a citation.

    Concerning the qualifications our research focussed on undergraduate degrees. We have not included information on master’s degrees, doctorates or any other type of post-graduate degree. There were several instances where we could find evidence of a person gaining a degree but could not find what the degree was in. These cases are marked as unknown. In some instances individuals have attained qualifications without an undergraduate degree. For example, Graeme Hart of New Zealand completed an MBA but has no undergrad degree. In this case we have labelled him as having ‘no degree’.  

    There were also instances where families are considered the ‘richest people’ in their country. For the sake of simplicity we have formatted these families in the same way we have formatted individuals.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 20:05

  • New IRGC Quds Force #2 Is Iran's 'Missile Mastermind' In Lebanon
    New IRGC Quds Force #2 Is Iran’s ‘Missile Mastermind’ In Lebanon

    Lebanon has a new Hezbollah-dominated and backed government after three months of protests have gripped the country, which no doubt has raised alarm for both Israel and the United States, especially given West-backed political parties were largely sidelined in the forming of Michel Aoun’s new handpicked cabinet, especially when it comes to Hezbollah’s top candidate for prime minister, newly sworn in (as of Tuesday) Hassan Diab.

    To make matters worse for Tel Aviv, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Quds Force has now named a #2 under Gen. Esmail Qaani — who himself had served as now slain Soleimani’s deputy for more than a decade. The new Quds deputy commander alongside top Quds chief Qaani is Mohammed Hejazi, according to The Jerusalem Post, who crucially is considered a longtime “central figure in Iran’s operations in Lebanon”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi, appointed as Acting Commander of Quds Force on January 20. Image via Radio Farda/Tasnim

    Last August a statement by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) named Hejazi as among three top IRGC commanders working to fast establish Hezbollah missile factories which can produce precision guided missiles, in preparation for the next major conflict with the Jewish state. 

    Israeli media reports suggest that before entering the Quds force, which is the elite covert foreign arm of the IRGC, Mohammed Hejazi was a key enforcer helping Tehran put down protests, such as the 2009 presidential election mass demonstrations. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to a profile in The Jerusalem Post, his career outside the country has been focused in bolstering Hezbollah’s weapons capabilities inside Lebanon:

    He faded from public view in 2014, and seems to have been in Lebanon during that time, helping Hezbollah stockpile and improve its estimated 150,000 missiles. Al-Ain media reports that he was Hezbollah’s key man linking them to the IRGC. He likely grew into this role after the death of Imad Mughniyeh who was assassinated in 2008.

    He helped supply arms to Hezbollah and help it with its precision guided missile programs. These programs have been spotlighted as a key threat to the region and Israel. Hezbollah wants to create local manufacturing bases for the precision guidance that would make its arsenal more dangerous. In March 2019 Israel said Hezbollah was seeking to set up an advanced missile plant in the Beka’a valley.

    The US administration has lately sought to pressure the Lebanese government into ensuring no domestic missile manufacturing is established under the aegis of Hezbollah. 

    Washington has long seen the Shia paramilitary group  which also has seats in parliament and a huge following in the country — as but a foreign arm of Iran and the Ayatollah; however, many Lebanese and people across the region see Hezbollah as a legitimate homegrown ‘resistance’ movement giving the historically oppressed Shia of south Lebanon a political voice. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Starting last August into September,  Israel dramatically stepped up its so-called anti-Iranian expansion campaign inside Lebanon which involved a series of attacks and assassination attempts in south Beirut and the Lebanese countryside using IDF drones. 

    Tel Aviv officials have repeatedly warned that Hezbollah missile manufacturing plants are a ‘red line’ against which the Israeli military would act


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 19:45

  • Hard Data Defies Confidence Consensus – The Slowdown Ain't Over 
    Hard Data Defies Confidence Consensus – The Slowdown Ain’t Over 

    Via Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI),

    The consensus is that the U.S. consumer is still strong enough to propel the economy forward even though the manufacturing sector has weakened. This view underpins expectations for improved corporate earnings in 2020. But the hard economic data strikes a discordant note.

    In particular, growth in industrial production on a year-over-year basis remains in a decisive downturn, sliding deeper into negative territory. Indeed, the production actually declined in 2019 amid losses in manufacturing job in recent months, fueling talk of a recession in that part of the economy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The undeniable weakness in manufacturing has caused the consensus to trumpet the strength of the consumer. Yet, the consumer, while reportedly confident, is not spending hand over fist. Rather, weakening sales trends [which we flagged ahead of the holiday season] underscore a sustained slowdown in consumer spending.

    Real retail sales growth fell to a six-month low of 1.25% in November on a year-over-year basis, dropping from 3.75% two years earlier. Yes, there was a big rebound in December, but that was mostly due to a highly favorable comparison to the disastrous December 2018 plunge in retail sales. Plus, that doesn’t negate the fact that spending growth has been tailing off even though surveys report a confident consumer and the stock market is at record highs.

    So, what gives? The lifeblood of the average consumer is job growth, not stock prices. So it’s important to recognize that year-over-year growth in nonfarm payrolls has dropped to its lowest level in 2.25 years. Not only that, but growth in total hours worked – which reflects growth in both jobs and the length of the workweek – hasn’t been this weak since 2010, dropping to 0.9% in December from just over 2% a year earlier.

    Worse still, growth in total pay has fallen even faster over the past year or so than growth in hours worked, slowing to a 3.8% pace from almost 5.5%. As a result, the year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings – the ratio of total pay to total hours worked – has fallen to 1.1% from 1.6%. This is the math behind the worrisome downturn in wage growth even in the face of a very low 3.5% jobless rate that has furrowed the brows of many economists.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For the average American, that sharp slowdown in the growth of total pay limits spending growth. No matter how confident consumers might feel, there’s only so much fresh debt they can realistically incur to support even more spending. The hard data shows growth in jobs, total pay and total hours worked are stuck in cyclical downswings. It also shows weakening trends in consumer spending and industrial production growth.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So while financial markets buoyed by increasingly accommodative central banks may be supportive of higher-income consumers, the average American is under considerable strain. Despite low yields on U.S. Treasury securities, average credit card rates have climbed inexorably in the last five years, surging above 15% in 2019. Meanwhile, one third of those buying new vehicles have negative equity in the used ones they are trading in, up from about one quarter before the financial crisis. And farm debt has topped $400 billion, up almost 40% since 2012.

     All this is why the boost to the economy from the Federal Reserve’s dovish pivot a year ago has primarily aided relatively narrow parts of the economy, such as financial services, residential construction and affluent consumers. But it has not helped business investment or average consumers, making it difficult to ignite an acceleration in overall economic growth.

    Regardless of the consensus view that the consumer is “strong,” there’s actually little indication that the deceleration in economic growth is over. As long as that’s the case, the risk of a recession – while not a clear and present danger – can’t be taken off the table for 2020.

    * * *

    Wall Street has prematurely gone all-in on the “strong” consumer narrative at a time when a manufacturing recession has triggered an employment slowdown that could start weighing on consumer spending.

    Money managers and leverage funds have front-run a V-shape economic rebound thanks to an abundance of Federal Reserve liquidity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With the economy continuing to decelerate and no signs of a significant upturn – and the threat the consumer could start weakening – the stock market’s most important support – buybacks – are rapidly declining.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If Fed liquidity shrinks, buybacks continue to decline, and a manufacturing recession transmits weakness into consumers — it seems that a blow-off top similar to the Dot Com era could be nearing. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 19:25

  • Twitter Blue-Checks Blast "Private Equity Mutants" For Bankrupting Their Favorite Grocery Chain
    Twitter Blue-Checks Blast “Private Equity Mutants” For Bankrupting Their Favorite Grocery Chain

    The rose-emoji-loving twitter blue checkmarks love complaining about esoteric financial concepts that they don’t understand. But as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and once in a while, even they get it right.

    As the coronavirus spreads around the world and the Davos billionaire circle-jerk enters its second day, the professional outrage mob has instead chosen the bankruptcy as obscure NYC supermarket chain Fairway as the trending topic du jour.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    David Roth, a former Deadspin writer who used his platform to mewl about the ‘evil’ Trump administration in a series of whiny diatribes, lamented that Americans haven’t already risen up and dismantled the private equity industry. Especially considering that the PE business model relies on buying companies and then dismantling, or bankrupting, them for a profit (though only a handful of private equity firms are truly that ruthless).

    To be sure, Roth admits that the only reason he cares about Fairway going under is because it directly affects him, and all the other NYC media denizens who relied on the grocery chain.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Others made a slightly more nuanced point: The failure of Fairway isn’t so much an indictment of the private equity industry as a whole, but rather of the greed and incompetence of managers who drive a thriving business into bankruptcy.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Though bankruptcy can help firms cut their losses, and often allow them to escape with profits while sticking lenders with the bill, few would argue that turning a private business profitable and then either selling it to Amazon or taking it public would have been a more profitable strategy.

    However, in an unexpected twist, Fairway issued a statement hours after the New York Post reported the bankruptcy disputing that it plans to file for Chapter 7 and liquidate its stores.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Instead, the company said it soon plans to announce a “value-maximizing transaction” that will allow for the “ongoing operation” of all 14 of its stores.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    But one reporter pointed out that Fairway has a strong incentive to vehemently deny the report, since warnings about an imminent move to liquidate might spook the company’s vendors, prompting them to aggressively tighten credit restrictions.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Post did hedge its reporting by claiming that rumors of a Fairway bankruptcy were circulating even amid “ongoing interest” in the Fairway brand by a potential rival. Any potential buyers are probably approaching with trepidation given Fairway’s massive $174 million debt load and its expensive leases, including a $6 million rent obligation for its flagship store.

    If the company does move ahead with plans to enter restructuring, this would be Fairway’s second trip through bankruptcy, which is how the private equity firms gained control of the company in the first place.

    So maybe those private equity guys aren’t so stupid after all. Either way, we suspect we will know soon enough, because even if Fairway does make it to liquidation, a more competent rival would likely end up buying all the assets and reopening the stores.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 19:05

  • CNN Can't Fathom It: Sanders Leading In Their Own National Poll
    CNN Can’t Fathom It: Sanders Leading In Their Own National Poll

    Authored by Eoin Higgins via CommonDreams.org,

    Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday for the first time has a lead in CNN polling of primary contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination — but you wouldn’t know that from how the network framed their coverage

    Sanders supporters took issue with the fact that despite the Vermont senator’s three point advantage over former Vice President Joe Biden, 27% to 24%, CNN in its headline declares that “Bernie Sanders surges to join Biden atop Democratic presidential pack” rather than acknowledging the lead. The network adds in the article that Sanders and Biden are “in a two-person top tier above the rest of the field.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders leads a new CNN poll. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

    The disconnect between the Sanders lead — which is just within the 3.4 point margin of error — and the framing of CNN’s piece on the poll was noticed by progressives and journalists. 

    “The title of the article makes it sound like it’s a tie,” said Sanders surrogate Shaun King. “It isn’t.”

    Law and Crime reporter Colin Kalchember also took aim at CNN for not declaring Sanders in the lead. “CNN still cannot fathom stating the obvious here: Sanders is leading in their own national poll,” said Kalchember. “Self parody.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The polling revealed other interesting data points, including that Sanders leads fellow progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) over liberal Democrats by 33% to 19% and leads Biden with voters of color by 30% to 27%. 

    “Gotta love those Bernie bros!” tweeted The Hill journalist Krystal Ball. 

    Sanders also leads a new poll out Wednesday from crucial Super Tuesday state California, besting Biden by 28% to 24%, and gained on the former vice president in Morning Consult’s weekly early-state polling.

    As CNN’s Ryan Struyk pointed out on Twitter, polling over the last few months shows a definite trend downward for Biden and upward for Sanders.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus who recently endorsed Sanders, celebrated the polling showing the Vermont senator pulling into the lead and urged the campaign’s supporters to use the momentum as a motivator to keep working toward a primary election victory. 

    “Great news, but we are not letting up!” said Jayapal. “#TeamBernie is winning because of Bernie Sanders’ bold ideas, steadfastness, and clarity on how we turn this country around.”

    * * * 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 18:45

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 22nd January 2020

  • Pope Francis Calls For Marxist Economic Summit
    Pope Francis Calls For Marxist Economic Summit

    Authored by Antonius Aquinas,

    As if there needs to be further evidence that the current occupant of St. Peter’s Chair in Rome is a Marxist, the announcement of an upcoming conference at Assisi entitled the “Economy of Francesco” should convince any skeptic otherwise.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In his invitation letter to “young economists and entrepreneurs worldwide,” Bergoglio sets the agenda for the Leftist confab quite clearly which is virulently anti-market, a call for massive redistribution of wealth, and a reordering of the current economic systems of the world with a healthy dose of climate change nonesense:

    …a different kind of economy: one that brings life not death, one that is inclusive and not exclusive, humane and not dehumanizing, one that cares for the environment and does not despoil it.

    While Bergoglio’s Marxist credentials have been firmly established, his blasphemous actions and words has a growing number outside of “sedevacantist circles” calling him a heretic.  The legitimacy of “Pope Francis,” however, is more fundamental than him being a manifest heretic, but his standing as a legitimate pope is invalid since his ordination as a priest and his consecration as a bishop came under the new rites of Holy Orders instituted in the wake of the Second Vatican anti-Council (1962-1965).

    The mastermind behind Bergoglio’s summit is professor Luigino Bruni and from his comments he sounds more radical than the Argentine Apostate, if that is possible.  Professor Bruni wants to use taxation as a weapon to “redistribute income and wealth from the rich to the poor.”

    Bruni, a professor of political economy at the Italian University, LUMSA, and the author of a number of books, basis his advocacy for redistribution of wealth on the Scriptures:

    [T]he Bible has many words to offer our economic life and ideas [with] the transformation of wealth into well-being.

    It appears that the good professor’s Bible is missing the Seventh Commandment of the Decalogue which solemnly states: THOU SHALL NOT STEAL!  In no legitimate commentary ever written on this Commandment is there an exception made for the confiscation of wealth from the well-to-do to be given to the poor.  Probably just an oversight on the Professor’s part.

    Because they are blinded by socialistic ideology, Bruni, Bergoglio, and the likes of Bernie Sanders cannot see that the growing wealth inequality which they complain about is not the result of “capitalism,” but is the outcome of the monetary policy of the world’s central banks.  This, along with tax policies which hamper innovation and shield the entrenched financial class from competition, is why financial elites are able to maintain and increase their power.

    Central bank policy of suppressing interest rates and of money printing allow banks and financial institutions to receive “free money” which they can invest and speculate with at zero cost.  The boom (actually a bubble) in asset prices on Wall Street is a demonstration of how wealth disparity takes place.

    If Bergoglio really meant to reform the present system, he would call for the abolition of central banking and a return to “hard money.”  Under such an order, banks and financial institutions become wealthy on their ability to make prudent investment decisions subjected to profit and loss.  A free market in banking is the antithesis of the current system of credit expansion and money printing.

    Not only have Bergoglio and his cohorts abandoned the Faith, but they have also overturned the Church’s long-held condemnation of socialism and have ignored many of its own outstanding thinkers on financial matters.  From the Scholastics to the School of Salamanca through the Jesuits and the great Cardinal Cajetan, who finally taught the proper doctrine on interest rates, the Church has produced scores of eminent economic thinkers in its long history.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    School of Salamanca

    Ever since socialism reared its ugly head as a social system of thought, the Church has warned of its dangers even its more milder forms as Pope Pius XII wrote, “No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism.” 

    Since Vatican II and especially under Bergoglio’s regime, however, Leftist ideas of all sorts have been warmly embraced.

    At the heart of socialism, be it Marxism or its equally pernicious variants, lies envy which became a part of the human condition with the fall of man.  While once condemned, envy has been turned into a virtue by the likes of Bergoglio.

    While such ideas may sound appealing to human sensibilities, they will not pass the Divine Judge who knows the thoughts and souls of all His creatures even those of supposed popes.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 02:00

  • Did Google Assassinate Wife Of Whistleblower Who Exposed The Search Engine?
    Did Google Assassinate Wife Of Whistleblower Who Exposed The Search Engine?

    Via GreatGameIndia.com,

    A high-profile Google whistleblower who back in July testified before Congress that the search engine meddled in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Hillary Clinton is now suggesting that the fatal car crash that killed his wife last month may not have been an accident.

    Did Google assassinate whistleblower’s wife who exposed the search engine?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Google Whistleblower Dr. Robert Epstein

    Robert Epstein is an American psychologist, professor, author, and journalist. He earned his Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard University in 1981, was editor in chief of Psychology Today, a visiting scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and the founder and director emeritus of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, MA.

    Criticism of Google

    In 2013, Epstein wrote in Time magazine that Google had “a fundamentally deceptive business model”. In 2015, he said that Google could rig the 2016 US presidential election and that search engine manipulation was “a serious threat to the democratic system of government”.

    According to Epstein,Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today’s high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration.”

    In a 2017 article, Epstein criticized efforts by companies such as Google and Facebook to suppress fake news through algorithms, noting “the dangers in allowing big technology companies to decide which news stories are legitimate”.

    Other journalists and researchers have expressed concerns similar to Epstein’s. Safiya Noble cited Epstein’s research about search engine bias in her 2018 book Algorithms of Oppression, although she has expressed doubt that search engines ought to counter-balance the content of large, well-resourced and highly trained newsrooms with what she called “disinformation sites” and “propaganda outlets”.

    Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at UCLA focusing on “the relationships between technology and politics”, agreed with Epstein that “the larger issue” of how search engines can shape users’ views is “extremely important”, but questioned how many undecided voters are using Google to them help decide who to vote for.

    Senate Judiciary Committee

    In July 2019, Epstein presented his research to the Senate Judiciary Committee, claiming that Google could manipulate “upwards of 15 million votes” in 2020 and recommending that Google’s search index be made public.

    In a clarification to a question asked by Ted Cruz he also said that “2.6 million is a rock bottom minimum” for how many votes Google might have swung towards Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, and that “the range is between 2.6 million and up to 10.4 million votes”.

    Google dismissed Epstein’s research as “nothing more than a poorly constructed conspiracy theory”.

    Death of Misti Epstein

    In December, Epstein, 66, announced that his wife – 29-year-old Misti Vaughn – was killed when her car spun out of control in inclement weather in Escondido, Calif., located in San Diego County. The California Highway Patrol said Vaughn lost control of her Ford Ranger in the rain and careened into oncoming traffic, crashing into a big rig and an SUV, San Diego’s KNSD reported.

    Epstein also shared an image of the badly damaged vehicle his wife was driving at the time of the wreck. “#Misti’s awesome Ford Ranger was broadsided by a Freightliner semi towing 2 loads of cement. I had my ear to her heart for most of the last 100 minutes of her life. I heard her take her last breath, & heard the last beat of her heart. Mine is broken,” he tweeted on Jan. 11.

    Dr. Robert Epstein in a sensational tweet last Sunday suggested that the fatal car crash that killed his wife last month may not have been an accident. He said, “Last year, after I briefed a group of state AGs about #Google’s power to rig elections, one of them said, “I think you’re going to die in an accident in a few months,” he tweeted. “A few months later, my beautiful wife #Misti died a violent death. Makes you wonder.”

    Investigation against Google in India

    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has launched a probe against Google for leveraging its dominant market position. If found guilty Google might be looking at a fine that could exceed Rs 136 crore (almost 10 million dollars).

    Google also had a role to play in 2008 Mumbai Attacks. One of the terrorist involved in Mumbai attacks closely monitored by British GCHQ was technology chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba Zarrar Shah. Top Secret US NSA document on Mumbai Attacks show that Mr. Shah, the technology chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terror group, and fellow conspirators used Google Earth to show militants the routes to their targets in the city. He set up an Internet phone system to disguise his location by routing his calls through New Jersey.

    It is no secret that technology giants Google, Microsoft and the likes works for the US military. Under the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, 2001 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978 the US Government and Intelligence Agencies can legally require a US based corporation to handover information that it either owns or has access to.

    And recently the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai personally assured the US President Donald Trump about “Google’s commitment to the US military”. In the words of Snowden, “the rebranding of Surveillance as Social Media is the most successful deception since the Department of War became the Department of Defense.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/22/2020 – 00:05

  • Housing Affordability Crisis Sparks "Rise Of The Pod People" Across America
    Housing Affordability Crisis Sparks “Rise Of The Pod People” Across America

    The U.S. is facing an affordable housing crisis as the Federal Reserve continues to inflate home prices with easy money that is far outpacing wages. 

    Homes in 74% of the country, mostly the large metro areas, are unaffordable for the average worker. At least three-quarters of millennials will never own home as they’re drowning in student debt, auto loans, and credit card debt. 

    Renting has also become too costly for many in large metro areas like San Francisco. Millennials have already moved into campers and tent cities to escape rising rents, but there could be a new solution called “pod living.” 

    For about $1,000 to $1,375, a millennial could rent a 50 sq. Ft. pod per month in downtown San Francisco’s Mission District, reported SFGate

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As of right now, developer Chris Elsey of Elsey Partners in Manhattan, Kansas, is planning to build two apartment buildings in the Mission District that will house tiny apartments and 88 pods. 

    “The contentious part is these below-grade sleeping pods,” said Elsey. “When you’re building something, the plans have to be approved by the Planning Department and the Building Department. These below-grade sleeping pods meet the building codes, but there’s this perception from the Planning Department that it’s not something any human being should be exposed to or allowed to do.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    SFGate reached out to San Francisco’s Department of Building about the project, who responded by saying: “At this point, we have not received any permit applications for the project. Until a developer applies for a building permit and submits building plans for DBI review, we are not in a position to say whether the proposed project will comply with San Francisco’s Building Code.”

    Elsey’s plan is to transform 401 S. Van Ness and 1500 15th St. into an eight-floor building with 161 200 sq. Ft. units. Then in the basement area, 88 pods will be housed, stacked up like a college dormitory. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Elsey said pod life would have strict rules, including no pod sex and or pod parties. 

    He said the purpose of the pods are too give millennials a chance to live in a hip part of town for an affordable price, even if that means a 50 sq. Ft. space for about $1,000 per month. 

    “We’re trying to build the most affordable market-rate living arrangement,” said Elsey. “That’s been our main objective.”

    He added: “We’re trying to utilize this below-grade space that has traditionally been used for accessory uses such as bike parking. What’s more important, beds or bikes? I guess it’s up to everybody’s opinion, but my opinion is there’s an incredible housing shortage in San Francisco.”

    Elsey is not the first to develop pods for broke millennials – we noted last summer that PodShare had bunk beds for rent in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    On the East Coast, we noted that  “capsule living” has become a popular trend among millennials as 350 sq. Ft. studios in NYC cost upwards of $645,000. 

    The fascination of tiny homes among millennials is the result of failed policies via the Fed and the government, who’ve allowed home prices to hyperinflate out of the reach of millennials. 

    We’ve even documented millennials buying shipping container homes on Amazon that cost around $37,000. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The pod life trend is increasing on both coasts – the American Dream is quickly reversing – a sign that wealth inequality in the “greatest economy ever” continues to soar. 

    The new American dream explained: 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 23:45

  • The End Of US Military Dominance: Unintended Consequences Forge A Multipolar World Order
    The End Of US Military Dominance: Unintended Consequences Forge A Multipolar World Order

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Starting from the presidency of George W. Bush to that of Trump, the U.S. has made some missteps that not only reduce its influence in strategic regions of the world but also its ability to project power and thus impose its will on those unwilling to genuflect appropriately.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some examples from the recent past will suffice to show how a series of strategic errors have only accelerated the U.S.’s hegemonic decline.

    ABM + INF = Hypersonic Supremacy

    The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while declaring an “axis of evil” to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant strategic problems besetting the U.S..

    The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. This argument held little water as the Iranians had neither the capability nor intent to launch such missiles.

    As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin, the deployment of such offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the Russian Federation’s nuclear-deterrence capability. Obama and Trump faithfully followed in the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia’s borders, including in Romania and Poland.

    Following from Trump’s momentous decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), it is also likely that the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) will also be abandoned, creating more global insecurity with regard to nuclear proliferation.

    Moscow was forced to pull out all stops to develop new weapons that would restore the strategic balance, Putin revealing to the world in a speech in 2018 the introduction of hypersonic weapons and other technological breakthroughs that would serve to disabuse Washington of its first-strike fantasies.

    Even as Washington’s propaganda refuses to acknowledge the tectonic shifts on the global chessboard occasioned by these technological breakthroughs, sober military assessments acknowledge that the game has fundamentally changed.

    There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this “balance of terror” exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for Washington’s vaunted ABM systems.

    In addition to ensuring its nuclear second-strike capability, Russia has been forced to develop the most advanced ABM system in the world to fend off Washington’s aggression. This ABM system is integrated into a defensive network that includes the Pantsir, Tor, Buk, S-400 and shortly the devastating S-500 and A-235 missile systems. This combined system is designed to intercept ICBMs as well as any future U.S. hypersonic weapons

    The wars of aggression prosecuted by George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only ended up leaving the U.S. in a position of nuclear inferiority vis-a-vis Russia and China. Moscow has obviously shared some of its technological innovations with its strategic partner, allowing Beijing to also have hypersonic weapons together with ABM systems like the Russian S-400.

    No JCPOA? Here Comes Nuclear Iran

    In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all options. Although the country’s leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to follow Pyongyang’s example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S. aggression.

    While this suggestion of mine may not correspond with the intentions of leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the protection North Korea enjoys from U.S. aggression as a result of its deterrence capacity may oblige the Iranian leadership to carefully consider the pros and cons of following suit, perhaps choosing to adopt the Israeli stance of nuclear ambiguity or nuclear opacity, where the possession of nuclear weapons is neither confirmed nor denied. While a world free of nuclear weapons would be ideal, their deterrence value cannot be denied, as North Korea’s experience attests.

    While Iran does not want war, any pursuit of a nuclear arsenal may guarantee a conflagration in the Middle East. But I have long maintained that the risk of a nuclear war (once nuclear weapons have been acquired) does not exist, with them having a stabilizing rather than destabilizing effect, particularly in a multipolar environment.

    Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended. Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA, has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

    Trump’s short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and Tehran, Washington’s actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain critical areas relative to its competitors.

    The death of Soleimani punctures the myth of the U.S. invincibility

    I wrote a couple of articles in the wake of General Soleimani’s death that examined the incident and then considered the profound ramifications of the event in the region.

    What seems evident is that Washington appears incapable of appreciating the consequences of its reckless actions. Killing Soleimani was bound to invite an Iranian response; and even if we assume that Trump was not looking for war (I explained why some months ago), it was obvious to any observer that there would be a response from Iran to the U.S.’s terrorist actions.

    The response came a few nights later where, for the first time since the Second World War, a U.S. military base was subjected to a rain of missiles (22 missiles each with a 700kg payload). Tehran thereby showed that it possessed the necessary technical, operational and strategic means to obliterate thousands of U.S. and allied personnel within the space of a few minutes if it so wished, with the U.S. would be powerless to stop it.

    U.S. Patriot air-defense systems yet again failed to do their job, reprising their failure to defend Saudi oil and gas facilities against a missile attack conducted by Houthis a few months ago.

    We thus have confirmation, within the space of a few months, of the inability of the U.S. to protect its troops or allies from Houthi, Hezbollah and Iranian missiles. Trump and his generals would have been reluctant to respond to the Iranian missile attack knowing that any Iranian response would bring about uncontrollable regional conflagration that would devastate U.S. bases as well as oil infrastructure and such cities of U.S. allies as Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dubai.

    After demonstrating to the world that U.S. allies in the region are defenseless against missile attacks from even the likes of the Houthis, Iran drove home the point by conducting surgical strikes on two U.S. bases that only highlights the disconnect between the perception of U.S. military invincibility and the reality that would come in the form of a multilayered missile conflict.

    Conclusion

    Washington’s diplomatic and military decisions in recent years have only brought about a world world that is more hostile to Washington and less inclined to accept its diktats, often being driven instead to acquire the military means to counter Washington’s bullying. Even as the U.S. remains the paramount military power, its ineptitude has resulted in Russia and China surpassing it in some critical areas, such that the U.S. has no chance of defending itself against a nuclear second strike, with even Iran having the means to successfully retaliate against the U.S. in the region.

    As I continue to say, Washington’s power largely rests on perception management helped by the make-believe world of Hollywood. The recent missile attacks by Houthis on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities and the Iranian missile attack a few days ago on U.S. military bases in Iraq (none of which were intercepted) are like Toto drawing back the curtain to reveal Washington’s military vulnerability. No amount of entreaties by Washington to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain will help.

    The more aggressive the U.S. becomes, the more it reveals its tactical, operational and strategic limits, which in turn only serves to accelerate its loss of hegemony.

    If the U.S. could deliver a nuclear first strike without having to worry about a retaliatory second strike thanks to its ABM systems, then its quest for perpetual unipolarity could possibly be realistic. But Washington’s peer competitors have shown that they have the means to defend themselves against a nuclear first strike by being able to deliver an unstoppable second strike, thereby communicating that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is here to stay. With that, Washington’s efforts to maintain its status as uncontested global hegemon are futile.

    In a region vital to U.S. interests, Washington does not have the operational capacity to stand in the way of Syria’s liberation. When it has attempted to directly impose its will militarily, it has seen as many as 80% of its cruise missiles knocked down or deflected, once again highlighting the divergence between Washington’s Hollywood propaganda and the harsh military reality.

    The actions of George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only served to inadvertently accelerate the world’s transition away from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. As Trump follows in the steps of his predecessors by being aggressive towards Iran, he only serves to weaken the U.S. global position and strengthen that of his opponents.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 23:25

  • Cross-Country Storm To Dump Snow And Rain From West To Plains, Midwest And Northeast This Weekend
    Cross-Country Storm To Dump Snow And Rain From West To Plains, Midwest And Northeast This Weekend

    The next big storm is expected to develop on the West Coast early this week with lower-elevation rain and mountain snow. The storm will then move across the West to the Plains, Midwest, and Northeast by the weekend, reported The Weather Channel

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The storm will begin to develop in the West on Tuesday, dumping rain on lower-elevations and unleashing accumulating mountain snow in the Pacific Northwest, Northern California, and the Four Corners. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Crossing the Central Plains and Midwest by Wednesday, the storm will bring snow, a wintery mix, and or rain across eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Rain in the South is guaranteed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Central Plains, upper Mississippi Valley, and western Great Lakes could see accumulating snow on Thursday. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The storm will track northeastward on Friday and into the weekend. Accumulating snow is expected through the upper and mid-Mississippi valleys to the northern and western Great Lakes. Mostly rain in the Southeast and a mix of wintery precipitation for Ohio Valley and the central Appalachians.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states could see snowfall in the interior while coastal regions get a wintery mix to rain. Snow or rain will continue into Sunday, and it’s still too early to predict snowfall totals or where the 32-degree line will reside.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 23:05

    Tags

  • Life After Putin
    Life After Putin

    Authored by Dmitry Orlov via Club Orlov blog,

    Last week Vladimir Putin delivered his annual address before the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and since then I have received a flurry of emails and comments from people asking me to explain what he meant. I don’t want to make assumptions about the depth of your interest in Russian affairs, and so, to save you time, let me start by providing a very short executive summary:

    Putin will step down as president after his current term, which will end in 2024 unless an early election is held, but the system he has put in place will stay in place.

    Essentially, life after Putin will be more Putin under a different name. If that’s all you care about, you can stop reading now.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To delve deeper, we need to draw a distinction between Putin the man and the system of governance he has built over the past 20 years. There is always plenty to complain about, but overall it has been quite effective. During Putin’s period in power, Russia has solved the problems of separatism and domestic terrorism, reigned in the predatory oligarchy, paid off virtually all of its foreign debts including ones it inherited from the USSR, grew its economy by a factor of six (vs. China’s five and USA’s one), regained Crimea (which had been part of Russia since 1783), rebuilt its armed forces to a point where international security is no longer a major concern, and achieved an overall level of societal well-being that is unparalleled in all of Russian history.

    The system of governance he has built has worked well with him as the head of government, but it will require some adjustments in order to work well under future presidents, who may not be equally gifted. Recognizing this fact, on Wednesday Putin has launched a limited overhaul of the Russian Constitution. In addition to an entire raft of minor tweaks that will limit the powers of the President and give more powers to the Parliament, to provide for better checks and balances and a more democratically responsive system, there are a few proposed changes that stand out:

    • The word “consecutive” is going to be struck from Article 81.3: “The same person may not be elected President of the Russian Federation for more than two consecutive terms.” This wording created a loophole, which Putin duly exploited: after serving two terms, he sat out a term and then got elected for two more. This loophole will now be closed.

    • Article 14.4 is a rather curious one. It reads, in part: “If an international treaty or agreement of the Russian Federation imposes rules that are contrary to [Russian] law, the international rules shall be applied.” This creates a hole in Russian sovereignty which allows foreign bodies to overrule Russian law. This hole will now be closed.

    • Dual citizens and holders of foreign residency permits will now be barred from holding official positions within the Russian Federation. In addition, 25 years of Russian residency will be required of anyone running for President instead of the current 10. This may seem like a minor change, but it is causing Russia’s fifth-columnists and members of the liberal opposition to tear their hair out while gnashing their teeth because most of the current ones will be automatically disqualified from holding office while any future ones will be forced to choose between serving Russia and having a bug-out plan. More specifically, given their new outsider status, their Western masters will consider them useless and will no longer funnel funds to them or offer them free regime change training. This approach is sure to be more effective than the current, more labor-intensive one of playing whack-a-mole with foreign-financed NGOs and foreign agents attempting to infiltrate Russia’s government. Personally, I’ll miss having some of these miscreants around. They have provided quite a bit of entertainment, adding an element of stark raving lunacy to what is otherwise a rather stolid and detail-oriented political process.

    • The State Council, which until now has been an extraconstitutional advisory body, will now be written into the Constitution and endowed with certain constitutional prerogatives. Perhaps that is where Putin will move to once his current term as President expires, there to serve as an elder statesman and an arbiter between various levels and branches of government. The State Council could plug a major gap that currently exists between the federal and the regional levels. There are numerous problems that cannot be addressed effectively at the regional level but, given the vastness of the land, cannot be addressed effectively at the federal level either. It may also provide for a smoother transition to life after Putin, similar to what Kazakhstan has recently achieved, with Nursultan Nazarbayev stepping down as president and moving to the Security Council.

    • Other bits and pieces to be written into the Russian Constitution have to do with fleshing out the definition of the Russian Federation as a “social state.” Russia, as a sovereign entity, has a specific purpose: to serve and insure the welfare of its citizens, as already enshrined in Article 7: “1. The Russian Federation is a social state whose policy is aimed at creating conditions for a worthy life and the free development of the population. 2. The labor and health of population shall be protected, guaranteed minimum wages and salaries shall be established, state support ensured to the family, maternity, paternity and childhood, to disabled persons and the elderly, a system of social services developed, and state pensions, allowances and other social security guarantees shall be established.”

    So far so good, but a bit vague.

    Proposed changes will insure that incomes and pensions are such that everybody has decent living conditions. There are also proposed legislative changes to what’s called “maternal capital” to make having more than two children financially attractive. The demographic situation in Russia is not as dire as it was in the 1990s, and certainly a lot less dire than in Western Europe whose native populations are rapidly going extinct, but the fact remains that to achieve its stated goals Russia is going to need a lot more Russians. The Russian government has the money to spend on these initiatives, and getting the job done is largely a matter of lighting a fire under the federal and regional bureaucracies. Spelling out the social guarantees right in the Constitution is a good way to make that happen.

    Putin proposed that the constitutional changes be voted for in a referendum. Beyond the procedural nicety and the legitimizing effect of this exercise, it is sure to stimulate a lot more public interest and civic participation, making it more likely that the ever foot-dragging Russian bureaucrats (in the more remote regions especially) will be prevailed upon to act swiftly to enact the changes.

    This is all quite positive, yet, as you might have suspected, there is still something left for me to criticize.

    There are three elements which I believe are missing from the proposed constitutional changes:

    1. titular nation status for Russians,

    2. their right of return,

    3. and right of self-determination for long-term de facto independent regions.

    First, Russians are a nation without a homeland. If this sounds bizarre, that’s because it is. Within the Russian Constitution, there are just two uses of the word “Russian”: “Russian Federation” (which is defined as a “multinational state,” and “Russian language,” which is its official language alongside numerous others, but there is no mention of “Russian people.” Ethnic Russians make up roughly two-thirds of the population, yet no part of the Russian Federation, nor the entirety of it, is properly theirs.

    Compare that to the Jews: not only do they have the State of Israel, which is defined as a “Jewish state,” but they also have the Jewish Autonomous Region within the Russian Federation to return to if the Israeli experiment doesn’t work out (again). Birobidzhan (the capital of the Jewish Autonomous Region) is a whole lot nicer than Babylon, and its ruler, Alexander Levintal, an economics professor and a native son, is a whole lot nicer than King Nebuchadnezzar was.

    Part of this dismissive attitude toward Russians is a legacy of the Russian Revolution. The communist revolutionaries, Lenin and Trotsky especially, saw the Russian people as a pile of kindling to throw under the bonfire of world revolution, were biased in favor of various other ethnic groups and battled against “Russian chauvinism.” Stalin swiftly fell off the world revolution bandwagon, but then Bolshevist Russophobia raised its ugly head again under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. Since a lot of the Russian leadership from the 1990s, when the current constitution was drafted, got their start in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, this same attitude prevailed.

    Another aspect that influenced the decision to exclude all mention of Russians from the Russian Constitution has to do with well-founded fear of Russian ethnic nationalism. Nationalism is indeed an ugly and fantastically destructive phenomenon, as evidenced by the extreme nationalistic chauvinism currently on display in a number of former East Block countries, including the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The Ukraine, with its Nazi parades, is beyond horrible, but even Belarus, whose population is pretty much just plain Russian, has its lunatic fringe of nationalist extremists doing their best to muddy the waters. Within the Russian Federation there was once a nationalist movement, but it was quashed. Last I checked, some of its more radicalized members were still serving out long prison sentences for extremist activities.

    With the communist internationalist ideology dead as a doornail, and the nationalist threat within Russia now very much under control, it is perhaps time to address the bizarre problem of Russians being a nation without a homeland—by writing the Russians as the titular nation of the entire Russian Federation into the Russian Constitution. Some mention of Russian culture would be helpful as well. Russian is recognized as the common, official language, but without being informed by Russian culture, developed over a thousand years, it is bound to become just a bunch of Cyrillic characters, and the resulting level of common discourse is going to be rather low.

    With that done, the next natural step is to recognize, directly within the Russian Constitution, the right of return, which is a principle recognized in international law and enshrined in international conventions. Within Russian law it is currently provided for in an ad hoc manner by a combination of administrative laws and direct presidential orders—for instance, granting special privileges to Russians within the Ukraine or Belarus while denying those same rights to Russians living elsewhere. Sure enough, half a million people from these two countries have received Russian passports since these privileges were enacted.

    This ad hoc approach is warranted given the dire situation of Russians in Eastern Ukraine, but in general the right of return should be granted based on who people are, not on where they happen to reside. Granting this right to the entirety of the huge Russian diaspora, which was partly created when the USSR broke up, stranding many Russians on the wrong side of some entirely artificial Soviet administrative boundary that instantly became an international border, and partly as a result of a huge outflow of emigrants during the economically and socially disastrous 1990s, would help solve Russia’s demographic deficit.

    The last, and perhaps the most controversial suggestion I would like to make is to consider defining lawful, constitutional procedures for political self-determination, which is likewise an internationally recognized legal principle. The borders of the Russian Federation are, in some cases, the end product of a series of errors made during the Soviet era. During the post-Soviet era some of these have been remedied, after a fashion, and the regions in question have become de facto independent: Transnistria split off from Moldova and has been de facto independent for 28 years; Abkhazia from Georgia for 26 years; South Ossetia from Georgia for 12; Donetsk and Lugansk from the Ukraine for six. In many ways they have already been functioning as parts of the Russian Federation. But there is no constitutional mechanism for resolving this situation de jure by allowing them to determine their status in accordance with international law and to petition the Russian Federation for incorporation.

    When it comes to questions of self-determination, double standards abound. When Kosovo seceded from Serbia, no specific democratic procedures were followed, yet no questions were asked or even allowed. But when Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, this was considered to be illegal and resulted in international sanctions that are in place to this day. Given the extreme level of rancor on this issue internationally, this may be an extreme stretch goal, but at some point a solution will have to be arrived at for adjudicating the status of territories that have been de facto independent for decades, and for their subsequent entirely voluntary inclusion in the Russian Federation.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 22:45

  • China Is Already Blaming A Slowdown In 2020 On The Coronavirus Epidemic
    China Is Already Blaming A Slowdown In 2020 On The Coronavirus Epidemic

    So much can change in just 24 hours.

    It was just yesterday that China’s top twitter troll and Beijing propaganda voice to the west, Global Time Editor in Chief Hu Xijin was downplaying the risk from the coronavirus outbreak, comparing it to the SARS epidemic in 2003, and saying that “during SARS epidemic, even many medical staff contracted virus and died of it. It doesn’t look the same this time.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Oops, because just a few hours later, we got confirmation that at least 15 medical staff had in fact contracted the virus which now appears to be spreading human-to-human, as six people have died among 291 confirmed cases in China, eliminating any attempts to further downplay the significance of the coronavirus epidemic which has reportedly infected hundreds of people across China.

    So in a dramatic 180-degree reversal, the same twitter troll now had an entirely different message to the word: not only is “the epidemic expanding” and “concerns are mounting”, but more importantly, “It is inevitable that people will cut their trips during Spring Festival and holiday consumption will be hit.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    So what happened? It appears Beijing decided to not let a perfectly good crisis go to waste, and just as “trade war” was used as a 2019 scapegoat on which to blame the slowdown in the economy, an economy which is rapidly slowing down for vastly different reasons, it will now blame the coronavirus epidemic on the ongoing slowdown of the Chinese economy.

    The reason reason for the slowdown? China’s ghastly debt load of over 300% of GDP…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … while in turn makes it impossible for the country to inject substantial new debt into the economy to kickstart a new, and much-needed reflationary episode.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And since every attempt at deleveraging in the past decade has proven catastrophic, expect many more Chinese “exogenous” events which will be blamed for the country’s continued GDP shrinkage from 7% to 6% and now to a 5-handle.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 22:25

  • Chemical Weapons Inspector Gives Rare Testimony On Douma Before UN Security Council
    Chemical Weapons Inspector Gives Rare Testimony On Douma Before UN Security Council

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    The UN Security Council met in New York on Monday to discuss the investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into an alleged chemical attack that was said to have taken place in April 2018 in Douma, Syria. The alleged attack was blamed on the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and the US, UK, and France responded with an airstrike against Syrian government targets.

    A former OPCW employee spoke to the UN Security Council and accused OPCW management of ignoring and suppressing findings of the investigative team that was deployed to Douma.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons engineer and inspector Ian Henderson.

    The OPCW released their final report on the Douma attack in March 2019, the report concluded that a chlorine chemical attack likely occurred. Two cylinders were found at two separate locations in Douma that were said to be the source of the chlorine gas. The idea that these cylinders were dropped from an aircraft is central to the allegation that the Syrian government was responsible.

    An unreleased OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and published in May 2019. The report was prepared by Ian Henderson, a long-time OPCW employee who was tasked with analyzing the cylinders. Henderson’s assessment concluded, “observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.” Henderson’s findings were excluded from the final OPCW report.

    Since November 2019, WikiLeaks has released multiple OPCW documents and internal emails that not only support Henderson’s claims but also deal with discrepancies in levels of chlorine found in the area of the alleged attack. Another OPCW employee that goes by the pseudonym “Alex” spoke with journalist Jonathan Steele more about the traces of chlorine. Other leaks address inconsistencies between the victims observed symptoms and a chlorine gas attack.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Ian Henderson addressed the UN Security Council by video on Monday. Henderson presented himself as a non-political professional who is concerned with the integrity of the organization he worked with for many years.

    Henderson described himself as a “former OPCW inspection team leader who served for about 12 years.” Henderson said he was invited by the Chinese Minister Counselor to the UN to attend the Security Council meeting, but due to “unforeseen circumstances” with Visa waiver status, he was unable to attend. Henderson provided the council with a written statement, along with his video statement.

    Henderson said, “I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the professionalism of the staff members that work there, the organization is not broken I must stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in certain sensitive missions. The concern of course relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on the 7th of April in Douma, Syria.”

    Henderson explained that there were two teams deployed to investigate the alleged attack, “One team, which I joined shortly after the start of field deployments, was to Douma in Syria, the other team deployed to Country X.” WikiLeaks, and others, have speculated that “Country X” is Turkey, since OPCW investigators were deployed there to interview alleged witnesses.

    Most of the information in Henderson’s statement has been revealed in the documents released by WikiLeaks over the past few months. One of the main gripes Henderson had was that the team only deployed to “Country X” had the most say in the final report, while the team deployed to Douma was largely ignored.

    Henderson said, “The Findings in the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively, during and after the Douma deployments.”

    The OPCW published their interim report on the investigation in July 2018. WikiLeaks released the original version of the interim report last month, which drew a vastly different conclusion than the one the OPCW decided to publish. Henderson said, “By the time of the release of the interim report in July 2018, we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.”

    Henderson went on, “The (final FFM) report did not make clear what new findings facts, information, data, or analysis in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, engineering and/or ballistic studies had resulted in a complete turnaround in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team in July 2018.”

    “In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistics studies into the cylinders. The results of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack. This needs to be properly resolved through the wringers of science and engineering. In my situation, it’s not a political debate.”

    Henderson added a closing comment and said he led a “highly intrusive” investigation into the Barzah Syrian Scientific Research Center (SSRC), a laboratory outside of Damascus that was suspected of producing chemical weapons. The Barzah SSRC was the target of the coalition airstrike in April 2018 against the Syrian government in retaliation for the alleged Douma attack. Henderson said he wrote two reports on the SSRC before the attack and one report after. But Henderson said that “is another story all together,” and went on to end his video statement.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    After Henderson’s comments were aired to the Security Council, the representative for the Russian Federation mentioned that they invited the OPCW Director-General, and other OPCW officials to attend the meeting, but they chose not to participate.

    Much of the blame for the lack of pressure on OPCW management after all these leaks, lies on the media outlets that refuse to report on it. Bellingcat – the investigative firm that receives grants from the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy – bears most of the blame, since many mainstream outlets parrot what they say on Syria. Just a few days before this Security Council meeting, Bellingcat published a smear job on Ian Henderson.

    As of the writing of this story, the only major news outlets that covered this Security Council meeting are RT and Sputnik, so of course, it will be dismissed by many as Russian propaganda. Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, even accused Henderson of appearing at the UN on “behalf of the Russians.” But through his work, his words, and his modesty, Henderson proves to be a sincere and honest professional who is concerned about a supposedly neutral international body being used to promote a false narrative.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 22:05

    Tags

  • Netanyahu Rival Benny Gantz Calls For Annexation Of Jordan Valley Ahead Of Election
    Netanyahu Rival Benny Gantz Calls For Annexation Of Jordan Valley Ahead Of Election

    Candidates are trying to woo the Israeli right ahead of the country’s upcoming March 2 legislative elctions for the 23rd Knesset — the third round in less than a year — after in prior April and September 2019 elections parties continually failed to form the next government.  

    Toward that end Blue and White coalition chairman Benny Gantz evoked controversy Tuesday with a shock declaration that he’ll annex the Jordan Valley if he becomes prime minister in the next election. The centrist lawmaker did this while on tour of the region which lies at the eastern edge of the occupied West Bank and which makes up some 20% of the Palestinian territory. 

    Gantz called it “an inseparable part of the State of Israel” and the Jewish state’s “eastern defensive wall in any future scenario.” But right wing politicians, especially his top rival Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scoffed, saying everyone sees through what is essentially a desperate “bluff” to peel off more support from across the aisle in what’s coalesced on each side into a stalemated standoff. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Blue and White chairman Benny Gantz in prior visit to Jordan Valley settlement in the West Bank, AFP via Getty. 

    Gantz vowed: “After the elections, we will work to apply [Israeli] sovereignty on the Jordan Valley, [and] we will do this in a nationally agreed upon manner and in coordination with the international community.”

    And on the left and within the political alliance of the main Arab-majority parties, the declaration was slammed as irresponsible and destructive to democracy. The Arab unity group, Joint List, called it “a pathetic attempt to gather a few votes on the right,” and noted that any attempt of Israel to annex the Jordan Valley would “destroy any chance democracy and peace.”

    Netanyahu pounced in an effort to either call the bluff or pressure his rival to move immediately on the controversial initiative, urging Gantz to right away implement the annexation through the Knesset. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Benny, I expect your answer by this evening, unless [Joint List MK] Ahmad Tibi vetoes you,” said Netanyahu. Gantz hit back on Twitter by referencing the embattled prime minister’s recent indictment and looming legal battle: “first let us discuss [your] immunity, later we will manage claiming sovereignty [in the Jordan valley],” he wrote.

    Despite this latest declaration of desiring to annex what the international community recognizes as 20% of Palestinian West Bank territory, in reality such a move would prove explosive both on the ground among Palestinians and surrounding Arab states, and within international politics. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Map via Deutsche Welle 

    On this note, America’s potentially weighing in on these issues could have huge impact on the March elections. Multiple recent media reports have suggested the US administration is set to release the much-hyped ‘Trump Mideast peace plan’ just ahead of the key election.

    The Blue and White coalition has recently said such a move would constitute an “interference” in the election, especially given it’s expected to given Netanyahu a major boost, considering it’s likely to line up with his vision and he can chalk it as a ‘political win’. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 21:45

    Tags

  • "Sit This One Out": FBI Slammed for Social Media Shoutout To MLK
    “Sit This One Out”: FBI Slammed for Social Media Shoutout To MLK

    Authored by Jessica Corbett via CommonDreams.org,

    After the FBI took to Twitter Monday with a message that allegedly aimed to honor “the life and work” of Martin Luther King Jr., a chorus of critics promptly urged the bureau to “sit this one out,” pointing to its history of spying on King and trying to convince the civil rights leader to kill himself.

    Each year on the national holiday dedicated to King, progressives criticize and work to counter the whitewashed public narrative of a man who, particularly in the years leading up to his April 1968 assassination, passionately condemned the “evils” of capitalism, militarism, and racism.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A mugshot of Martin Luther King Jr. was taken following his 1963 arrest in Birmingham, Alabama. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

    The FBI, during both the Obama and Trump administrations, has provoked a wave of criticism for posting shoutouts to King on social media, given the bureau’s past treatment of him. Monday was no different.

    Writer and radio host Richard “RJ” Eskow — who detailed King’s radical vision and activism in a piece for the People’s Action blog Monday — shared the FBI’s 2020 tweet dedicated to MLK along with his own interpretation.

    “FBI, translated: Of all the people we have wiretapped, blackmailed, and tried to drive to their deaths through suicide, there are none we think more highly of than Dr. King,” Eskow tweeted.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Some critics expressed anger and disbelief. Rewire.News senior legal analyst Imani Gandy wrote in response to the FBI, “You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.”

    Journalist David Corn posed “a sincere question,” asking: “Has the FBI ever apologized to King’s family for wiretapping King, blackmailing him, and trying to get him to commit suicide?”

    Others posted an unsigned letter from 1964 that the FBI, then under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, sent to King in an attempt to use evidence of his extramarital affairs to compel him to kill himself.

    The unredacted letter was published by Yale University American history professor Beverly Gage in the New York Times in 2014.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As Vox reported in 2018:

    According to Enemies, journalist Tim Weiner’s history of the FBI, [the bureau’s domestic intelligence chief William Sullivan] “had a package of the King sex tapes prepared by the FBI’s lab technicians,” and sent it along with this letter to King’s home. The package was opened by King’s wife.

    ACLU social media manager Emily Patterson declared on Twitter that “the FBI social media manager continues to prove we really, really need to do a better job of teaching kids history in this country.”

    Acknowledging the bureau’s track record of posting about MLK, Patterson added, “Do y’all think there’s anyone over at FBI marketing who at least *tries* to get them not to do this annually?”

    The official ACLU account warned that “if we let the government whitewash history, we risk letting abuses repeat themselves.”

    The civil liberties group linked to a piece that Kade Crockford, director of the Technology for Liberty Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts, published in Rolling Stone on MLK Day last year—detailing “Hoover’s obsession with King,” which Crockford concluded “bordered on the fanatical,” and the consequences of that obsession, including the letter.

    Crawford also noted that “the FBI’s surveillance of black Americans isn’t just history. [In 2018], we learned the FBI has been spying on black activists, labeling them ‘Black Identity Extremists.’ The feds also use powers obtained through national security laws like the Patriot Act to target people in the racially biased drug war.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “More disturbing: The FBI that spied on King and today classifies Black civil rights activists as ‘extremists,'” Crockford continued, “is now partnering with Big Tech to amass unprecedented surveillance powers that history has taught us will be used to target communities of color, religious minorities, dissidents, and immigrants.”

    FBI director Christopher Wray testified before Congress in July 2019 that the bureau has stopped using the term “black identity extremism.” However, some groups and individuals on Monday shared critiques of the FBI’s current practices alongside denunciations of the bureau’s past behavior.

    The London-based advocacy group CAGE, which works to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror, tweeted Monday that the FBI still tries “to suppress dissent” and uses “dirty tactics that would make Edgar Hoover proud. But [is] happy now to co-opt MLK to try to cover up the above.”

    CAGE also shared the FBI’s letter to King and, like many other critics, referenced COINTELPRO, the domestic counterintelligence program under which the FBI spied on King and many other activists and organizations, including the Black Panthers and protesters of the Vietnam War.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 21:25

    Tags

  • Lawyers Claim Some Weinstein Accusers "Bragged About Having Sex With Him"
    Lawyers Claim Some Weinstein Accusers “Bragged About Having Sex With Him”

    President Trump’s impeachment isn’t the only major trial that Americans will be following in January.

    Now that the jury has been picked (sadly, Gigi Hadid didn’t make the cut, much to the disappointment of the New York Post) and the defense has succeeded in limiting the number of young, white women on the jury to just 2, it’s time for what some are hyping as the next trial of the century.

    Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood studio head and kingmaker whose fall from grace inspired the #MeToo movement, is facing a criminal trial in Manhattan on charges of rape and assault. I convicted, it’s extremely likely that the 67-year-old Weinstein will be sentenced to life in prison, while civil suits and penalties eat away whatever is left of his fortune.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With opening statements about to begin next week, Weinstein’s legal team has started laying out its defense in the press.

    According to ABC News, Weinstein’s team is pushing to include a trove of “intimate email correspondence” between the former mogul and his accusers – emails that they say would paint a wildly different picture of their relationships with the defendant.

    Some of the emails even show that some of the very same women accusing Weinstein of rape once bragged to friends about being in a sexual relationship with the mogul. Given Weinstein’s stature in the industry, many of his accusers are women who wanted or needed a favor from him, even if it was merely a small role in one of his films.

    Though Weinstein’s reputation has been thoroughly sullied in a way that makes it impossible to portray him as a victim (except inside his own head), the lawyers could argue that this evidence weakens the witnesses’ credibility, suggesting that they might have reluctantly consented to Weinstein’s advances.

    Conveniently, Weinstein’s health has apparently deteriorated over the last two years – or at least that’s what his lawyers want the public to believe.

    The trial is moving ahead in Manhattan as Weinstein’s lawyers have so far failed in their push to change the venue outside of New York City, where hatred for Weinstein is likely at its highest. 

    Considering the number of celebrities and the circus like atmosphere that engulfs everything in NYC, Weinstein’s lawyers argued that he would never received a fair trial. But the judge rejected those claims.

    In December, he underwent a bilateral laminectomy, a back surgery that was allegedly vital to repair damage from a one-car crash. Weinstein said he swerved off the road trying to avoid a deer. That must have been some deer.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 21:05

    Tags

  • Migrants Waiting For Dems To Win Election Because "It Would Make Things Easier To Get In"
    Migrants Waiting For Dems To Win Election Because “It Would Make Things Easier To Get In”

    Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

    Migrants in central America say they are waiting for President Trump to be voted out of office and for Democrats to reopen the borders so they can cross illegally into the US without the fear that authorities will ‘throw them back.’

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Center for Immigration Studies reports that many migrants are sitting in wait in Mexico, praying for a Trump defeat.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “I’ll wait for that because it would make things easier to get in.” Honduran Katherine Cabrera told researchers, adding “I want Trump out!”

    Another told CIS that many are not attempting to illegally gain entry to the country “until Trump leaves,” because the prevailing expectation is that “right now, the Americans will throw you back” to Mexico.

    “A lot of people in El Salvador believe he (Trump) is the reason all this is happening, that he is selfish and cruel and doing everything he can to make us suffer,” another migrant commented, adding “But once Trump is defeated and the Democrats take over, things are going to get better.”

    Other groups of migrants are attempting to cross in greater numbers, believing that it will give them a better chance of evading capture:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    On Monday, Thousands of migrants stormed a bridge over the Suchiate River from Guatemala to Mexico, attempting and failing to move further north.

    The scenes were chaotic with Mexican National Guard troops confronting the migrants:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The CIS reports that apprehensions of illegal crossers are down from about 144,000 last May to 40,000 in December, owing to new reinforcements on the US side of the border, and the asylum agreement made by the US government with Mexican authorities that allows migrants to wait in Mexico.

    Further reports suggest that President Trump wants to divert billions in funding to the border wall:

    Meanwhile, Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden, the “moderate” opposition to Trump, declared Monday that he will seek to end all illegal immigration detention “across the board”.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 20:45

  • In Response To "Completely False" NHTSA Unintended Acceleration Petition, Tesla Blames Short Sellers
    In Response To “Completely False” NHTSA Unintended Acceleration Petition, Tesla Blames Short Sellers

    Just days ago we reported that the NHTSA was evaluating a petition claiming that 500,000 Tesla vehicles are subject to “unintended acceleration” incidents. In response to the petition, the NHTSA said it was going to be considering an investigation, but there has been no final word on any action (or lack thereof) yet.

    But over the weekend, we were finally treated to Tesla’s perfunctory and predictable “official” response to the news, which has of course been to blame short sellers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a blog post posted on Monday titled “There is no ‘unintended acceleration’ in Tesla vehicles“, Tesla claims that the problem is just a figment of everyone’s imagination and that evil short sellers are to blame.

    “This petition is completely false and was brought by a Tesla short-seller,” the post says. “We investigate every single incident where the driver alleges to us that their vehicle accelerated contrary to their input, and in every case where we had the vehicle’s data, we confirmed that the car operated as designed. In other words, the car accelerates if, and only if, the driver told it to do so, and it slows or stops when the driver applies the brake.”

    Well that makes us feel better…

    The company also claims that Autopilot sensors (because they’ve worked so well) and company owned and managed data about its vehicles support its defense.

    Unique to Tesla, we also use the Autopilot sensor suite to help distinguish potential pedal misapplications and cut torque to mitigate or prevent accidents when we’re confident the driver’s input was unintentional. Each system is independent and records data, so we can examine exactly what happened.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But then, despite trying to place the blame on shorts, Tesla seems to backhandedly admit that there are customer complaints about the very same issue.

    The blog post concludes: “We are transparent with NHTSA, and routinely review customer complaints of unintended acceleration with them. Over the past several years, we discussed with NHTSA the majority of the complaints alleged in the petition. In every case we reviewed with them, the data proved the vehicle functioned properly.”

    Hopefully, the next body we hear from with regard to this petition is the NHTSA.

    Although, judging by Tesla’s past success in swiping away extremely serious issues and sweeping them under the rug of blaming short sellers without addressing key issues, we’re not optimistic about the outcome. 

    The NHTSA petition news came just days after we reported that the NTSB would be investigating a fatal Tesla Model X crash in February. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 20:25

  • Ron Paul: How Expansive Is FBI Spying?
    Ron Paul: How Expansive Is FBI Spying?

    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    Cato Institute Research Fellow Patrick Eddington recently filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out if the Federal Bureau of Investigation ever conducted surveillance of several organizations dealing with government policy, including my Campaign for Liberty. Based on the FBI’s response, Campaign for Liberty and other organizations, including the Cato institute and the Reason Foundation, may have been subjected to FBI surveillance or other data collection.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I say “may have been” because the FBI gave Mr. Eddington a “Glomar response” to his FOIA requests pertaining to these organizations. A Glomar response is where an agency says it can “neither confirm nor deny” involvement in a particular activity. Glomar was a salvage ship the Central Intelligence Agency used to recover a sunken Soviet submarine in the 1970s. In response to a FOIA request by Rolling Stone magazine, the CIA claimed that just confirming or denying the Glomar’s involvement in the salvage operation would somehow damage national security. A federal court agreed with the agency, giving federal bureaucrats, and even local police departments, a new way to avoid giving direct answers.

    The Glomar response means these organizations may have been, and may still be, subjected to federal surveillance. As Mr. Eddington told Reason magazine, “We know for a fact that Glomar invocations have been used to conceal actual, ongoing activities, and we also know that they’re not passing out Glomars like candy.”

    Protecting the right of individuals to join together in groups to influence government policy is at the very heart of the First Amendment. Therefore, the FBI subjecting such groups to surveillance can violate the constitutional rights of everyone involved with the groups.

    The FBI has a long history of targeting Americans whose political beliefs and activities threaten the FBI’s power or the power of influential politicians. The then-named Bureau of Investigation participated in the crackdown on people suspected of being communists in the post-World War I “Red Scare.” The anti-communist crackdown was headed by a young agent named J. Edgar Hoover who went on to become FBI director, a position he held until his death. Hoover kept and expanded his power by using the FBI to collect blackmail material on people including politicians.

    In the 1930s and 1940s, the FBI spied on supporters of the America First movement, including several Congress members. Two of the most famous examples of FBI targeting individuals based on their political activities are the harassment of Martin Luther King Jr. and the COINTELPRO program. COINTELPRO was an organized effort to spy on and actively disrupt “subversive” organizations, including antiwar groups.

    COINTELPRO officially ended in the 1970s. However, the FBI still targets individuals and organizations it considers “subversive,” including antiwar groups and citizen militias.

    Congress must hold hearings to determine if the FBI is currently using unconstitutional methods to “monitor” any organizations based on their beliefs. Congress must then take whatever steps necessary to ensure that no Americans are ever again targeted for surveillance because of their political beliefs and activities.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 20:05

  • US Informs Haftar: Resume Libya's Blocked Oil Exports "Immediately"
    US Informs Haftar: Resume Libya’s Blocked Oil Exports “Immediately”

    Days after Benghazi-based General Khalifa Haftar and his rebel LNA forces blocked all oil under their control from leaving Libyan ports (the LNA currently controls territory which includes some 90% of the nation’s oil facilities), the United States has demanded the immediate resumption of oil exports.

    “The suspension of National Oil Corporation (NOC) operations risks exacerbating the humanitarian emergency in Libya and inflicting further needless suffering on the Libyan people,” the US embassy in Tripoli said in a Twitter statement Tuesday.

    “NOC operations should resume immediately,” it said. Haftar had previously issued the order, which immediately resulted in condemnations from some Western capitals, on Saturday just ahead of the Berlin peace conference on Libya. The action blocked several key export terminals, notably Brega, Ras Lanuf and Al-Sidra ports.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Oil terminal file image, via Al Jazeera.

    Bloomberg reported Saturday that pro-Haftar foces “blocked oil exports at ports under his control, slashing output by more than half and posing a potential setback for an international conference on Sunday that aims to broker an end to a civil war in the OPEC nation.”

    The move is seen as aimed at protesting Turkey’s increased military intervention in the conflict which has raged for much of the past two years. Turkey has recently sent both national troops and Syrian ‘rebel’ mercenaries to defend the Tripoli Government of National Accord (GNA). Haftar has in turn declared any Turkish vessel or aircraft a target to be destroyed. 

    The oil stoppage also has military implications on the ground, given the GNA’s national army relies on the country’s oil revenue to purchase weapons via Tripoli’s central bank.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Libya’s Tripoli-based National Oil Company said Monday: “The storage capacity of these ports is limited and the NOC will be obliged to put a complete halt to crude production once maximum capacity has been reached.” 

    S&P Global Platts has warned the country’s oil sector could enter a “tailspin”

    Libya’s oil sector could go into a tailspin with two-thirds of its total crude oil production of around 1.20 million b/d at risk after its key oil ports were suspended Saturday by the Libyan National Army…

    Haftar has vowed repeatedly to not give up his military offensive until he has control of the Libyan capital, despite fighting for months staying at a relative stalemate, and despite multiple failed ceasefire efforts. His dramatic move to cut off the nation’s vital oil lifeline was widely interpreted additionally as an effort toward gaining “veto” leverage over any ‘ceasefire deal’ attempt in Berlin at the start of this week.

    The LNA’s response to the US urging that oil exports must resume “immediately” will be interesting. Although for years Washington and the State Department has “officially” recognized the UN-backed government in Tripoli, President Trump starting last Spring verbalized his support for Gen. Haftar, who Trump said has “secured the oil” and is a stabilizing force. 

    Oil exports make up over 90% of Libya’s national revenue and as the below 2019 Stratfor map demonstrates, Haftar has long held the majority of the nation’s oil fields.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It should also be noted that Haftar has been described by many analysts as “the CIA’s man in Libya” — given he spent a couple decades living in exile a mere few minutes from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia during Gaddafi’s rule.

    An April 2019 White House statement which described a phone call between Haftar and Trump said: the president “recognized Field Marshal Haftar’s significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources, and the two discussed a shared vision for Libya’s transition to a stable, democratic political system.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 19:45

  • Chinese Officials Warn Of "Virus Mutation Spreading" – 440 Cases Confirmed, 9 Dead
    Chinese Officials Warn Of “Virus Mutation Spreading” – 440 Cases Confirmed, 9 Dead

    Update (2130ET): North Korea has temporarily closed its borders to foreign tourists, two major operators of tours to the isolated country said, in an apparent effort to seal itself off from a new virus causing global health worries.

    *  *  *

    Update (2115ET): Chinese officials have just held a press conference that was anything but the usual CDC “everything’s ok” statement. The particularly ominous warning that the virus is mutating and spreading is perhaps due to the poor handling of the SARS breakout in 2002/3 which was marked by cover-ups and official reluctance to share information.

    Li Bin, vice head of China’s National Health Commission, confirmed there are 440 confirmed coronavirus cases in this new outbreak and there have been 9 deaths. Some 1,394 patients are under medical observation.

    Officials also confirmed Wuhan airport will have screening equipment (and Wuhan citizens have been asked to limit travel) and a nationwide monitoring system is being put in place (one wonders if the social credit score will go down if a citizen contracts the deadly disease).

    Finally, the officials said that they will disclose information in a timely and public way and are doing their best to curb the spread of the disease.

    And all of this is happening as hundreds of millions prepare to travel for the New Year’s celebrations.

    “A wave of panic has struck,” said Zhuang Jiapeng, a fund manager at Shenzhen JM Capital Co. “People may feel the urge to bolt after northbound saw its largest selling in months — foreign buying has been perceived as something of a safety valve. With the virus spreading, there may be a real impact on consumption during the holidays.”

    Long facemasks; Short rats (2020 is year of the rat).

    *  *  *

    Update (1920ET): Just like we saw during past outbreaks of disease in China, a panicked population has bought up face-masks at such a frantic rate that several of their unscrupulous countrymen have resorted to gouging.

    American brand 3M, a popular manufacturer of facemasks in China, has already sold out on its official online stores on e-commerce platforms Taobao and JD.com .

    Meanwhile, guards at the Wuhan airport pointed electronic thermometers at travelers, with plans to segregate anybody showing a fever, an early symptom of the virus.

    Several unscrupulous sellers who bought up masks en bulk are now managing to sell them for more than 10 times their original price. Some retailers were selling the masks for as much as 40 yuan ($7), a more than 10-fold mark-up. Users of Weibo, a Chinese social network similar to Twitter, warned anybody planning to travel to instead consider staying home, and repeatedly washing their hands.

    According to certain sites that track prices of Chinese goods, the masks typically sell for 53 cents.

    At one pharmacy in Shanghai, a shopkeeper named Liu Zhuzhen said more than 100 people had bought masks by noon on Tuesday. They sold out again after a re-stocking.

    * * *

    Update (1600ET): Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Zhejiang, Henan, Chongqing, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Seoul, Tokyo, Brisbane, Taipei – and now Washington State.

    The viral pneumonia-like lung illness first discovered late last year in Wuhan, a mid-sized Chinese city in the center of the country, has Beijing’s leadership – who are already grappling with slowing economic growth and continuing trade pressure from the US – very much on edge.

    It’s clear now that Beijing’s initial response to reports of a new SARS-like virus was to dissemble. After initially insisting that there was no evidence that the virus could be spread by humans, health officials have now admitted that they were “wrong”, and that human-to-human transmission is possible, meaning that there’s no telling yet just how contagious this thing really is.

    It’s already spread rapidly: In just a few weeks, it’s gone from a few isolated cases in Wuhan to nearly 300 confirmed cases, not just in Greater China, but also across the Asia-Pacific region, and now in the US. The fact that the CDC has already identified the first case in Washington State suggests that this is an aggressive pathogen, and health officials are duly concerned.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It has already confounded expectations. The fact that 139 cases – roughly half the total number reported – were only just identified over the weekend is especially unnerving, because now infected hosts have had time to scatter back to wherever they’re from, potentially spreading the virus across the planet.

    According to Bloomberg, the US case has been revealed to be a man in his 30s who returned to the US last week, but not before visiting a public market in Wuhan…

    The sudden spike in cases has prompted airports in the US, Australia and elsewhere to tighte illnesses has prompted tightened borders and a rapid attempt to trace contacts of those who have become ill.

    On Wednesday, the World Health Organization will decide whether this crisis qualifies as a public health emergency of international concern, a label signifying only the most complex pathologies with the potential to cross borders. The WHO could recommend that travel be restricted, or that global governments take other drastic measures.

    With global health officials on high alert, local authorities in Wuhan have announced that the city has 800 hospital beds ready in three separate designated care hospitals, and it’s ready to have 1,200 prepared at short notice, according to local media reports.

    With the Chinese New Year travel season about to begin, many fear that millions of Chinese traveling abroad or internally for vacation will help the virus spread at an exponential rate. Chinese health officials have played down the possibility of this. But they also say they don’t want to underestimate it. After all, the last major outbreak, SARS in 2003, killed 800 people.

    * * *

    Update (1335ET): The CDC has confirmed that a traveler from China has been diagnosed in Seattle with the Wuhan Coronavirus.

    The patient, who was hospitalized with pneumonia last week, recently had traveled to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak appears to have originated, federal officials have found.

    Officials declined to identify the patient, who was said to be quite ill.

    Additionally, on a conference call, the CDC confirmed it expects more US cases to come.

    The outbreak began at a market in China and now has spread to at least four other countries, and  has killed at least six people and sickened hundreds more in Asia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Broadly speaking, stocks are getting hammered on this but there is one silver lining however, prices for flu-shot manufacturers are soaring: Nanovaricides +240%, Novavax +53%, Inovio Pharma +10%, and Vaxart +14%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    CNN’s AnneClaire Stapleton (@AnneClaireCNN) tweeted an ominous warning:

    “The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce this afternoon that the first case of Wuhan coronavirus has been reported in the United States, in Washington state, a federal source outside the CDC tells CNN.”

    And the market reacted rapidly…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Transports are the worst hit on the day, already suffering from coronavirus fears overnight…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Can The Fed just print up some anti-virus?

    As we detailed earlier, the global risk-off wave had started in the overnight hours of Monday as the full extent of the Chinese coronavirus scare became apparent to traders, has rolled into the cash session Tuesday with airline, casino and gaming, hotel, and travel stocks, taking a leg lower.

    Delta Air -3.50%, United Airlines Holdings -3.20%, Southwest Airlines -1.5%, and American Airlines Group -2.50%, were all sold as the outbreak may crimp global air travel during the upcoming Lunar New Year holiday period.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Investors dumped Wynn Resorts -4.45%, Las Vegas Sands Corp -4%, and MGM Resorts International -3%, as the virus threatens to decrease foot traffic. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hotels were also sold, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts -1%, Choice Hotels International -1%, and Extended Stay America -1%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Travel stocks were dumped, Expedia Group -1%, Booking Holdings -2.20%, TripAdvisor Inc -1%, and Trip.com -10%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Investors are unloading sensitive travel stocks because confirmed cases of coronavirus have tripled since Monday and spread to other countries around China with the risk of spreading across the world. 

    Fears of a 2002-03 outbreak of SARs has been on everyone’s mind to start the week – and with a Lunar New Year holiday fast approaching – the spread of the virus could broaden in the days ahead.

    Travel sensitive stocks have taken a beating in Asia, Europe, and the US – basically across the world on Tuesday, as investors brace for new cases of the virus that is quickly spreading.

    Could this mean world stocks are due for a pullback? 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 19:25

  • Monetary Policy & Business Cycle Scripts Flipped: Fed Policy Stimulates Finance Over Spending
    Monetary Policy & Business Cycle Scripts Flipped: Fed Policy Stimulates Finance Over Spending

    Authored by Joe Carson via The Carson Report,

    The monetary policy guide has fundamentally changed and so to has the business cycle. Changes in monetary policies and practices nowadays stimulate finance over spending. The power and risks of equity markets should not be overlooked as important metrics show equity valuations to be 2X times their historical norm.

    Monetary policy can stimulate too much finance (equities) as it did with spending (inflation). As such, the risks of business cycles have shifted toward finance and away from inflation.

    Here are 5 examples of how monetary policies, new tools and practices stimulate finance over spending.

    1. Policy Rates: The primary tool of monetary policy is the target on the federal funds rate.  Policymakers have often struggled to find a good balance, or find a rate that was equally good for the economy and finance.

    Policymaker’s promise to keep official rates exceptionally low in recent years, and now for the foreseeable future, clearly favor finance over spending. To be sure, interest rates are the most important item in determining the value of equities so the promise on official rates creates the “perfect knowledge” market theory for investors since it eliminates one of the key risks and unknowns—the current and future level of official rates. 

    2. Policy Bias:  Policymakers have consistently shown a bias to ease policy during sharp sell-offs in the financial markets and no bias to withdraw liquidity when finance races far ahead of the economy. This uneven policy —often call the “Fed put”—creates the impression in the minds of investors that policymakers will always ride to their rescue during sell-offs and not stand in the way when markets boom.

    Policy actions of 2018 and 2019 clearly demonstrate that the policy bias is alive and well. Policymakers canceled their plans to raise official rates in 2019, following the abrupt and sharp equity market sell-off in Q4 2018, and yet show no inclination to take back any or all of the three rates cuts of late 2019 despite the resurgence in equity markets to new record highs.

    3. Asset Purchases:  The Federal Reserve has become a big investor in financial assets, expanding the Feds balance sheet to $4.5 trillion at its peak, up from less than $900 billion before the financial crisis. The new Fed tool works through the portfolio channel, injecting more liquidity into the financial markets, thereby lifting the price of financial assets, while also signaling to investors an easier stance on monetary policy.

    The recent selloff and rebound in the equity markets have been highly correlated with the shrinkage and the renewed expansion of the balance sheet in 2018 and late 2019. Rightly or wrongly investors view increases and decreases in the Fed’s balance sheet as a signal of easy or tight money and a risk-on or risk-off strategy.

    4. Transparency and Forward Guidance:  Policymakers now telegraph their decisions on policy rates, well ahead of any actual decision and also offer forward guidance on policy rates along with their economic forecasts. Who benefits from greater transparency and forward guidance?

    Investors appear to be the big winner. Never before did policymakers offer so much transparency on official rates—telling investors what they plan to do, when and by how much.  That’s not to say policy transparency has taken all of the risk out of investing, but it removed one of the biggest risks, enabling investors to devise a series of investment strategies based on “inside” knowledge on official rates.

    5. Price Targeting: The Fed elevated inflation from an objective of monetary policy to an actual target. That might not sound like a big deal, but it is.

    The curious thing about price targeting is the gauge policymakers chose to target.  The Fed picked the personal consumption expenditure deflator (PCE) over the more widely used consumer price index (CPI). PCE consistently runs below the CPI, so by selecting the PCE there is a clear bias towards lower rates. 

    In 2019, the choice of the price index proved to be the difference between easing and tightening policy. To be sure, the core PCE reading of 1.7% tilted policy towards an easier stance, while the CPI of 2.3% favored rates inching up a bit more.

    The Results

    The numbers on finance (equity valuations) are impossible to ignore.  Household holdings of equities stand nearly 2X times the level of consumer spending as does the market valuation of domestic companies to nominal GDP. Historic norms are closer to 1X.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The narrow public ownership of equities limits the spending impulse for consumers, but the high equity valuations offer companies a huge collateral buffer to borrow.  US nonfinancial companies are sitting on over $10 trillion in debt, almost twice as much as what was on corporate balance sheets at the end of 2008, and the highest debt-to-sales ratio on record.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From many sides, monetary policy nowadays stimulates finance more than spending and as the equity market goes so goes the business cycle. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 19:25

  • Phase One Trade Deal "Doomed From The Start" As Skepticism Mounts About Purchases
    Phase One Trade Deal “Doomed From The Start” As Skepticism Mounts About Purchases

    President Trump is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, giving a speech to the world’s elites on how the Phase 1 trade agreement is the greatest deal ever. 

    Trump has touted non-stop on Twitter about how he made the biggest deal in the world, and China will be purchasing vast quantities of U.S. farm products in the coming months.

    After all, it’s an election year, and Trump has to cheerlead, even as skepticism is growing over China’s capacity to buy U.S. products, reported South China Morning Post (SCMP). 

    China’s commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion of U.S. goods over the next several years “may be doomed from the start.” 

    Chad Bown, a trade specialist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), said, “a close look at the data shows that the numbers are even more unrealistic than first believed. Even worse, hostilities might renew, leading to a re-escalation of trade tensions currently on hold.” 

    Much of the skepticism of trade purchases by China is from their repeated statements on how import purchases from the deal will be based on market conditions. This was reiterated by Li Xingqian, head of the foreign trade department, on Tuesday, who said, “we will expand imports from the United States based on the principles of the market and World Trade Organization rules and will not affect imports from other countries.” 

    Much of the demand will be based on China’s economy, and with growth slumping to three-decade lows in 2019 – a surge in demand for U.S. products will be challenging for Chinese importers. 

    China’s State Grid, the largest utility company in the country, warned that economic growth could plunge to 4% within the next four years, according to internal forecasts.

    Andrei Agapi, associate pricing director for agriculture at S&P Global Platts in Singapore, told the SCMP that if “China says it’s down to market conditions, then the U.S. will have to be competitive. And the reality is that the U.S. is not competitive by a long shot already, and it hasn’t been before either.” 

    Agapi said since China offered tariff waivers on U.S. soybeans imports last fall, the price has risen past Brazilian beans, which would entice the Chinese to ditch U.S. markets for ones in Latin America because of cost factors. 

    We’ve noted how China has been actively diversifying farm purchases away from the U.S. towards Brazil and Argentina. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Peter Meyer, head of grain and oilseed analytics at S&P Global Platts, said when we spoke with Chinese bean traders in the interior of the country, there’s pessimism developing that “there is no way they could even run that much in the country – it would throw the entire domestic supply chain into disarray.” 

    Traders told SCMP that if China had to bite the bullet and buy U.S. farm goods despite market conditions – then it would do so via state trading companies like COFCO. 

    Agapi said China has already purchased 50% of its soybean demand for the year from Latin America. Furthermore, he said demand this year will be lower because the African swine fever wiped out at least half of the country’s pig herd. 

    Andrew Tilton, Goldman Sachs’ chief economist for Asia-Pacific, said Tuesday that “it would obviously take political will and maybe some easing of import restrictions in a couple of areas”.

    “The surprise for us in the official document was that the amount on the agriculture side is less and the energy side was more. That might be relevant because there were a couple of sectors where orders would count as purchases. There are often long-term energy contracts that are signed, but it’s less typical in the agricultural space to see that,” Tilton said.

    Bown said 28% of U.S. exports to China are part of industries not covered by the new trade agreement, and this could mean these exports are slashed while sourced from other countries. 

    “Thus, in legal terms, China has little incentive to import those US$51.6 billion of uncovered products from the U.S. in 2020 or 2021,” he said.

    Bown warned: “To compensate angry trading partners aggrieved because of the trade diversion, China could purchase more uncovered products from them and reduce imports from the United States. That would be painful for American companies and workers whose products Trump has chosen not to put into this agreement.”

    More or less, the trade agreement will likely be broken after the election, and the trade war will resume. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 19:05

  • Actual Drag Queen Slams "Woke" Parents For Allowing Their Kids To Be Around Drag Queens
    Actual Drag Queen Slams “Woke” Parents For Allowing Their Kids To Be Around Drag Queens

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Drag queen Kitty Demure posted a viral video in which he expressed his amazement at why ‘woke’ parents are allowing their kids to be around drag queens, asking, “Would you want a stripper or a porn star to influence your child?”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Demure questioned why drag queens had attracted so much “respect” from the left given that they’ve done little more than “put on make-up, jump on the floor and writhe around and do sexual things on stage.”

    “I have absolutely no idea why you would want that to influence your child, would you want a stripper or a porn star to influence your child?” he asked.

    Demure went on to point out that drag queens perform in clubs for adults and that backstage “there’s a lot of sex, nudity and drugs, so I don’t think this is an avenue you would want your child to explore.”

    “To get them involved in drag is extremely irresponsible on your part,” Demure told parents, adding that many went along with it to appear “cool” or “woke” to their leftist friends.

    “You can raise your child to be just a normal regular everyday child without including them in gay, sexual things,” said Demure.

    The drag queen went on to argue that things like Drag Queen Story Time which involve kids are actually harmful to the LGBT community too because they advance the notion that gay people are perverts, pedophiles and deviants.

    We don’t need you to bring your kids around, so keep them at home or take them to Disneyland, take them to Chuck E. Cheese – but if you need your child to be entertained by a big human in costume or in make-up, take them to the circus or something,” he said.

    “Don’t ruin your child’s life and don’t ruin us, because that’s what you’re doing,” concluded Demure.

    As we previously highlighted, a teacher at Willis High School in Texas said parents shouldn’t have the “final say” in raising their own kids after some of them complained about a drag queen visiting the school to give a talk to the children.

    *  *  *

    My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 18:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 21st January 2020

  • Iran Now Threatening Withdraw From Landmark 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty
    Iran Now Threatening Withdraw From Landmark 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty

    With the 2015 Iran nuclear deal now unraveling given the move by the UK, Germany, and France to trigger the dispute resolution mechanism which will ultimately lead to the next step of EU nations filing complaint with the UN Security Council that Iran is in violation, Iran’s participation in yet another historic treaty is on the chopping block. 

    Iran is now threatening to withdraw from the landmark Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which since taking effect in 1970 (after initiating in 1968) is recognized as the only binding international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, while promoting peaceful use of nuclear energy. 

    Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif announced to Iranian lawmakers Monday“If Europeans continue their untenable conduct or send Iran’s nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council, we will withdraw from the N.P.T.,” according to state media. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image: Iranian ballistic missile on display.

    Prior to Zarif’s statement Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi vowed that Iran is planning “one last step” in drawing down its commitment to the JCPOA which is to ultimately have “more effective consequences”. Many have taken this to mean the Obama-brokered deal is now all but dead, especially following the Jan.6 declaration in the wake of the Qassem Soleimani killing that Iran no longer accepts limits on uranium enrichment. 

    In a televised address to the nation last Thursday President Hassan Rouhani Rouhani reaffirmed that “no restrictions on nuclear energy” remain and that Iran is “better off in terms of nuclear power.” He claimed further that:

    We are enriching more uranium [than] before the deal was reached… Pressure has increased on Iran but we continue to progress.”

    But he also left an opening for dialogue, emphasizing that the process remains reversible at this point, but only if Europe takes specific immediate action to allow the Islamic Republic to export its oil. 

    Adding fuel to the fire, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had responded to last week’s development’s by suggesting a new deal brokered with the Trump administration: “If we’re going to get rid of it, let’s replace it and let’s replace it with the Trump deal.”

    This reportedly infuriated leaders in Tehran, who’ve repeatedly rebuffed past White House suggestions to scrap the 2015 deal altogether and start afresh with direct talks. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 01:00

    Tags

  • The Geopolitics Of Epistemological Warfare: From Babylon To Neocon
    The Geopolitics Of Epistemological Warfare: From Babylon To Neocon

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    I think any sane human being can agree that while war was never a good idea, war in the 21st century is an absolutely intolerable one. The problem we currently face is that many of the forces driving world events towards an all-out war of “Mutually Assured Annihilation” are anything but sane.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While I’m obviously referring here to a certain category of people who fall under a particularly virulent strain of imperial thinking which can be labelled “neo-conservative” and while many of these disturbing figures honestly believe that a total war of annihilation is a risk worth taking in order to achieve their goals of total global hegemony, I would like to make one subtle yet very important distinction which is often overlooked.

    What is this distinction?

    Under the broad umbrella of “neo-conservative” one should properly differentiate those who really believe in their ideology and are trapped under the invisible cage of its unexamined assumptions vs. that smaller yet more important segment that created and manages the ideology from the top. I brushed on this grouping in a recent 3 part study called Origins of the Deep State and Myth of the Jewish Conspiracy.

    To re-state my meaning: This group doesn’t necessarily believe in the ideological group they manage any more than a parent believes in that tooth fairy which they promote in order to achieve certain behavioral patterns in their children.

    While belief in the tooth fairy is slightly less destructive than belief in a misanthropic neocon worldview of a Bolton, Pompeo or Cheney, the analogy is useful to communicate the point.

    Cult Managers: Ancient Babylon and Now

    Modern ideology-shapers serve the same role as those ancient high priests of Babylon, Persia and Rome who managed the many cults and countless pagan mystery religions recorded throughout the ages. It is well documented that any cult could comfortably exist under Rome’s control, as long as said cult denied any claim to objective truthfulness- making the rise of Abrahamic monotheistic faiths more than a little antagonistic to empire.

    Did the high priests necessarily BELIEVE in those dogmas which they created and managed?

    Hell no.

    Was it politically necessary to create them?

    Of course.

    Why?

    Because an Empire, like everything in the world, exist as a whole with parts… but since they deny any principle of natural law (justice, love, goodness, etc), empires are merely a sum of parts and their rules of organization can be nothing but zero sum. Each cultish group may coexist as an echo chamber alongside other groups sacrificing to whatever deity they wish without judgement of moral right or wrong bounded only by a common blind faith in their group’s beliefs- but nothing universal about justice, creative reason, or human nature is otherwise permitted. Here the a-moral “peace” of “equilibrium” can be achieved by an oligarchy which wishes to lord over the slaves. Whether we are dealing with Caesar Augustus, Lord Metternich’s Congress of Vienna, Aldous Huxley, Sir Henry Kissinger, or Leo Strauss (father of modern neo-conservativism), “Peace” can never be anything more than a mathematical “balancing of parts”.

    Now it is a good moment to ask: What does this phenomenon look like in our modern age?

    To answer this, let us leap over a couple of millennia and take a look at something a bit more personal: Adam Smith and the doctrine of free trade.

    Smith at Her Majesty’s Service

    Do Smith’s modern followers sincerely believe in the “self-regulating forces of the free market”?

    Sure they do.

    Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system?

    Whether he did or not, according to recent research conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission to compose his seminal book Wealth of Nations (published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a carriage ride from Edinburgh to London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the same Lord Shelburne who essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and who always despised all colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or channel said credit towards internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his 1729 Necessity of Paper Currency and Colonial Script.

    Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new “Law” of “absolute advantage” demanded that everyone just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land, so they should stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry (don’t ask how that happened because it wasn’t through free trade), so they should stick with that! India had advanced textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then have a lot of opium fields so she could do that… which China could then smoke to death under the watch of British Gunships. “Free Trade” demanded it so.

    Let’s look at another example: Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection

    A Not-too-Natural Selection

    Darwin’s theory published in his Origins of Species (1859) was based on the assumption that all changes in the biosphere are driven by “laws” of “survival of the fittest” within an assumed closed ecosystem of diminishing returns. Just as Smith asserted that an “invisible hand” brought creative order to the chaos of unregulated vice and self-interest, Darwin asserted that creative order on the large scale evolution of species could be explained by chaotic mutations on the micro level beyond a wall that no power of reason, free will or God could pass.

    Did Charles Darwin believe his system? Probably.

    But how about Thomas Huxley (aka: “Darwin’s Bulldog”) whose efforts to destroy all competing theories which included “purpose”, “meaning”, or “design” were crushed and ridiculed into obscurity? Huxley himself was on record saying he did not believe in Darwin’s system. So why was this theory promoted by forces (like Huxley’s X Club) who recognized its many flaws? Well, here again it helps to refer to Darwin’s own account of his discovery from his autobiography where he wrote:

    “In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species. Here then, I had at last got a theory by which to work”.

    Malthus’s ‘Dismal Science’

    And here we have it! Reverend Thomas Malthus (the cold hearted “Man of God” who taught economics at the British East India Company’s Haileybury College) provided the very foundation upon which Darwin’s system stood! Thomas Huxley and the other “high priests” of Huxley’s X Club were always Malthusian (even before there was Malthus) since empires have always been more focused on monopolizing the finite resources of an age, rather than encouraging creative discoveries and new inventions which would bring new resources into being- overcoming nature’s “limits to growth” (a dis-equilibrium not to be tolerated). Whether Malthus actually believed in the system which bears his name, as generations of his adherents sincerely do, remains to be seen. However his own awareness of the needed extermination of the “unfit” by the Ubermenschen of the British Aristocracy preceded Social Darwinism by a full century when he coldly called for the encouragement of the plague and other “natural forms of destruction” to cull the herd of the unfit in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1799):

    “We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”

    A little later, Malthus even argued for the early extermination of poor babies who were of low value to society when he said:

    “I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance… The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place.”

    The neo-Malthusian revivalists such as Princes Bernhardt, Philip Mountbatten and Huxley’s own grandson Sir Julian who birthed the misanthropic deformity today called the Green New Deal were not ignorant to this tradition. The disastrous effect of this worldview upon races deemed “unfit” in the global south should also not be ignored. It is no coincidence that those three neo-Malthusian oligarchs founded the World Wildlife Fund, 1001 Nature Trust and Club of Rome which imposed a technological apartheid upon the third world over the bodies of countless statesmen during the Cold War.

    The Danger of Creative Thought to an Empire

    Encouraging creative thought and cooperation among diverse nations, linguistic, religious and ethnic groups tends to result in new uncontrolled systems of potential as humanity increases its capacity to sustain itself while imperial systems lose their ability to parasitically drain their host. In Lincoln’s great 1859 speech, the martyred leader stood up against this Malthusian paradigm endemic of the British Empire when he said:

    “All creation is a mine, and every man, a miner. The whole earth, and all within it, upon it, and round about it, including himself, in his physical, moral, and intellectual nature, and his susceptibilities, are the infinitely various “leads” from which, man, from the first, was to dig out his destiny… Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions.”

    Lincoln’s economic commitments to protective tariffs, state credit (greenbacks) and internal improvements are inextricably linked to this view of man also shared by the earlier Ben Franklin.

    Today, the positive paradigm which Lincoln died to defend is most clearly represented by the leaders of such nations as Russia and China- both of whom have come out repeatedly attacking the post-truth neo-liberal order and also the win-lose philosophy of Hobbesian geopolitics. The folly of America’s new dance with impeachment and the neocon hand shaping Trump’s disastrous foreign policy agenda is tied to the oligarchy’s absolute fear of losing America to a new Eurasian partnership which Trump has promoted repeatedly since entering office in 2017.

    Xi Jinping and Putin have not only responded to this obsolete system by creating an alternative system of win-win cooperation driven by unbounded scientific and technological progress but they have also managed to expose the Achilles heal of the empire. These statesmen have demonstrated a clear recognition that those ideologies ranging from neo-liberalism to neo-conservativism are entirely unsustainable, and defeatable (but not militarily)Xi expressed this insight most clearly during his recent trip to Greece.

    Even though leaders like Putin and Xi understand this, citizens of the west will continue to be woefully unequipped to either make sense of these chaotic systems of belief, extract them from their own hearts if they are so contaminated or resist them effectively, without understanding that those who fabricated and manage these belief structures never truly believed in them.

    Neoconservative founding fathers such as Leo Strauss, Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir Bernard Lewis absolutely never believed in the ideologies their cultish golems like Bolton, Cheney or Kristol have adhered to so religiously. Their belief was only that the sum-of-parts called humanity must ultimately be governed by a Hobbesian Leviathan (aka: a new globalized Roman Empire), and that Leviathan could only be created in response to an intolerably painful period of chaos which their twisted tooth fairies would usher into this world.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/21/2020 – 00:00

  • The Moment We've All Waited For: Mile Long Asteroid Could Finally End Humanity On Earth
    The Moment We’ve All Waited For: Mile Long Asteroid Could Finally End Humanity On Earth

    We can only imagine how much the Dow Jones Industrial Average would rally on news of the end of humanity. Thankfully we won’t be around to witness it. 

    In upbeat news today, there’s a mile long asteroid floating around out that that experts say could finally end life on Earth.

    The asteroid was linked to a one inch meteor that streaked a fireball through the sky of Japan three years ago and could eventually threaten humanity if it breaks up. The catch: it would likely happen millions of years from now, according to Fox News

     

    Toshihiro Kasuga, a visiting scientist at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and Kyoto Sangyo University, said in a release Wednesday: “The potential breakup of the rock could be dangerous to life on Earth. Those resulting asteroids could hit the Earth in the next 10 million years or so.”

    The fireball that was seen over Kyoto in April 2017 was a one inch meteor that broke off of the asteroid, scientists later determined. 

    (2019/10/20) Fireball That Flew Over Japan in 2017 Was Tiny Piece of Giant Asteroid that Might One Day Threaten Earth | Live Science https://t.co/RP0YcC2UAy

    In the early morning of April 28, 2017, a small fireball crept across the sky over Kyoto, Japan.

    2003 YT1 pic.twitter.com/2hEHPxLJ4n
    — matiere* (@matiere) October 23, 2019

    Kasuga said: “We uncovered the fireball’s true identity. The 2017 fireball and its parent asteroid gave us a behind-the-scenes look at meteors.”

    The asteroid is known as 2003 YT1, and according to scientists is made up of two parts: “the larger rock measures 1.2 miles and is orbited by a 690-foot piece.”

     

    “The parent body 2003 YT1 could break up and those resulting asteroids could hit the Earth in the next 10 million years or so, especially because 2003 YT1 has a dust production mechanism,” Kasuga concluded. 

    The asteroid was first discovered in 2003 and has a history of “cracking and releasing dust particles into space”. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 23:35

  • Understanding The Fabian Window
    Understanding The Fabian Window

    Via Alt-Market.com,

    In the video below, Truthstream Media discusses one of the most dangerous and ideologically insane root organizations of modern globalism and the “new world order – The Fabian Society. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Fabians are notorious for their obsession with incremental tyranny and the erasure of individual and national sovereignty. 

    Though other organizations like the Council On Foreign Relations have now taken over at the forefront of the globalist effort, the Fabians were the foundation, the beginning of the modern push towards an everlasting totalitarian empire ruled by the elites.  Understanding their history and tactics helps us to understand exactly what is taking place today. 

    The “Brave New Word” is being established now, and it must be stopped…


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 23:10

  • "Eat The Rich": Davos Beefs Up Security As Protesters Gather
    “Eat The Rich”: Davos Beefs Up Security As Protesters Gather

    Organizers of the 50th World Economic Forum in Davos have beefed up security after hundreds of climate protesters made their way though snow-covered streets towards the annual gathering of roughly 3,000 global elites and their high-level minions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to AP, measures included extra vehicle checks and ‘webcam shutdowns,’ while the Swiss national authorities have restricted the airspace above the event.

    Up to 5,000 troops, fighter jets, ground defense systems and additional radar have also been authorized as part of the enhanced security, as authorities and organizers work from a $9 million budget just for the extra security.

    Various people in the world are under great threat if you can put it that way, and wherever they appear, they deserve commensurate security measures,” said Walter Schlegel, the regional police commander (via DevDiscourse), adding “The U.S. president has a big security detail that must be deployed.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Some activists were forced to reach the event via hiking trails after authorities banned foot traffic on the road between Davos and nearby Klosters.

    Protesters with the “Strike-WEF” collective, who began marching toward Davos on Sunday, have taken issue with one security measure: An order from regional police that no more than 300 people can attend a planned protest near the town hall. Authorities insist the square is too small to hold more people. They call such limits anti-democratic.

    “When they can have space for 3,000 people – the majority of who are the richest people on the planet – but for only 300 among the 99% of the rest of us, it’s a joke,” said Payal Parekh, a spokeswoman for the collective. Members of the group and its supporters – some dressed in get-ups like Ronald McDonald outfits – were marching toward Davos but have been barred from the main roads to get there. –AP via WaPo

    The protesters, organizing under the hashtags #WorldEconomicFailure and #StrikeWEF, hiked roughly 30 miles from Landquart to Davos.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “They say they want to make the world better, but for 50 years they haven’t done anything,” said Rosalina Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Young Socialists which helped organize the demonstration.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 22:45

    Tags

  • Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who's Really In Charge Of The US Military?
    Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who’s Really In Charge Of The US Military?

    Authored by Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    “There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold.”

    – William Shakespeare

    Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man. It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives of just this one person.  The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that is exactly what we should not do.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of ‘official government statements’.

    Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.

    An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows

    It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina. That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep. Churchill would announce his “Iron Curtain” against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.

    In a previous paper I wrote titled “On Churchill’s Sinews of Peace”, I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of Truman’s de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d’état, which was exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933, against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.

    One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as the President’s principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.

    In Col. Prouty’s book he states,

    In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC) Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions, provided they had been directed to do so by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces were directed to “provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA” as an official function.

    What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC’s policies.

    An Inheritance of Secret Wars

    There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.

    – Sun Tzu

    On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.

    JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration’s March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.

    This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office, and the limitations of a President’s power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.

    Within three months into JFK’s term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a decisive victory for Castro’s Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because, had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst a Cold War.

    What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro’s last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro’s last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro’s threat, without the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA’s plan for Cuba.

    Kennedy’s order for the airstrike on Castro’s jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade’s B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out of the country on the day of the landings.

    Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:

    Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an “air cover” position written into the official invasion plan…The “air cover” story that has been created is incorrect.

    As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was due to Bundy’s telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President’s air strike order.

    Kennedy had them.

    Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA’s intervention into the President’s orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty states,

    When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy’s coffin.

    If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.

    In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.

    NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision “to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963” and further stated that “It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965.” The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY ’65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.

    This was to be the final nail in Kennedy’s coffin.

    Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d’état that it was and is. The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison’s book. And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie “JFK”)

    Through the Looking Glass

    On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy’s murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of Kennedy’s policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.

    The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy’s death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans.

    Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.

    It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over.  Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency against the CIA fueled “communist-insurgency” of Indochina. This is how today’s terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.

    Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to ‘pay the price’.

    Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down ‘by accident’ the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176 civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely something else going on here.

    I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.

    One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as “terrorist” occurring in April 2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani’s assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet “Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.” Bolton has also made it no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.

    Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that though West Points’ cadet motto is “You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.”, his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating “I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.

    Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 22:20

  • US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests
    US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests

    After major protests hit multiple cities across Iran in November following a drastic government slash in gasoline subsidies which quickly turned anti-regime, broad internet outages were reported — some lasting as long as a week or more nationwide following Tehran authorities ordering the blockage of external access. 

    And during smaller January protests over downed Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, more widespread internet outages were reported recently, likely as Iranian security services fear protest “crackdown” videos would fuel outrage in western media, and after months ago Mike Pompeo expressly urged Iranians in the streets to send the State Department damning videos that would implicate Tehran’s leaders and police. 

    But now Washington appears to have initiated the “Syria option” inside Iran: covertly fueling and driving “popular protests” to eventually create conditions for large-scale confrontation on the ground geared toward regime change. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image source: Zuma Press/DW.com

    Financial Times reports Washington’s ‘covert’ efforts are now increasing, and are more out in the open

    US government-funded technology companies have recorded an increase in the use of circumvention software in Iran in recent weeks after boosting efforts to help Iranian anti-regime protesters thwart internet censorship and use secure mobile messaging.

    The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America’s policy of “maximum pressure” over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since protests in Iran in 2018 — at the time the largest in almost a decade — Washington had accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world.

    Similar efforts had long been in place with anti-Assad groups prior to the outbreak of conflict in Syria in 2011, WikiLeaks cables previously revealed. 

    The US State Department is now openly boasting it’s enacted this program for Iran, which includes “providing apps, servers and other technology to help people communicate, visit banned websites, install anti-tracking software and navigate data shutdowns,” according to FT.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And dangerously, many Iranians may not even realize they could be in some instances relying on such US-funded countermeasures to circumvent domestic internet blockages:

    “Many Iranians rely on virtual private networks (VPNs) that receive US funding or are beamed in with US support, not knowing they are relying on Washington-backed tools.”

    Iran is on occasion known to round of citizen-journalists and accuse them of being CIA assets thus the State Department’s open boasting about its program, which is further connected to a broader $65.5 million “Internet Freedom program” in troubled spots throughout the world — could only serve to increase this trend. 

    “We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week’s] protest,” one US state department official told the FT. “We are able to sponsor VPNs — and that allows Iranians to use the internet.”

    So there it is: US officials explicitly admitting they were actively assisting in organizing recent protests which followed Soleimani’s killing and the Ukrainian airliner shoot down. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    At least one circumvention software is actually identified in the report as being produced by Canada-based Psiphon, which receives American government funds. Of course the company sees its role more as facilitating “free flow of information” and less as essentially a willing asset in pursuing covert regime change in Tehran. 

    Interestingly, the revelation comes just as other US-funded propaganda campaigns related to Iran are coming to light:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    All of this suggests neocons in Washington could be a big step closer to fulfilling their long-term dream of seeing US-sponsored regime change come to Iran — a policy plan which goes back to at least the 1990’s and was given greater impetus and urgency under the Bush administration. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 21:55

  • Davos Elites Warn "Climate Action Failure" Biggest Global Risk In 2020
    Davos Elites Warn “Climate Action Failure” Biggest Global Risk In 2020

    Authored by Marcus Lu via VisualCapitalist.com,

    Environmental concerns are a frequent talking point drawn upon by politicians and scientists alike, and for good reason. Irrespective of economic or social status, climate change has the potential to affect us all.

    While public urgency surrounding climate action has been growing, it can be difficult to comprehend the potential extent of economic disruption that environmental risks pose.

    Front and Center

    Today’s chart uses data from the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risks Report, which surveyed 800 leaders from business, government, and non-profits to showcase the most prominent economic risks the world faces.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the data in the report, here are the top five risks to the global economy, in terms of their likelihood and potential impact:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With more emphasis being placed on environmental risks, how much do we need to worry?

    According to the World Economic Forum, more than we can imagine. The report asserts that, among many other things, natural disasters are becoming more intense and more frequent.

    While it can be difficult to extrapolate precisely how environmental risks could cascade into trouble for the global economy and financial system, here are some interesting examples of how they are already affecting institutional investors and the insurance industry.

    The Stranded Assets Dilemma

    If the world is to stick to its 2°C global warming threshold, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, a significant amount of oil, gas, and coal reserves would need to be left untouched. These assets would become “stranded”, forfeiting roughly $1-4 trillion from the world economy.

    Growing awareness of this risk has led to a change in sentiment. Many institutional investors have become wary of their portfolio exposures, and in some cases, have begun divesting from the sector entirely.

    The financial case for fossil fuel divestment is strong. Fossil fuel companies once led the economy and world stock markets. They now lag.

    – Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis

    The last couple of years have been a game-changer for the industry’s future prospects. For example, 2018 was a milestone year in fossil fuel divestment:

    • Nearly 1,000 institutional investors representing $6.24 trillion in assets have pledged to divest from fossil fuels, up from just $52 billion four years ago;

    • Ireland became the first country to commit to fossil fuel divestment. At the time of announcement, its sovereign development fund had $10.4 billion in assets;

    • New York City became the largest (but not the first) city to commit to fossil fuel divestment. Its pension funds, totaling $189 billion at the time of announcement, aim to divest over a 5-year period.

    A Tough Road Ahead

    In a recent survey, actuaries ranked climate change as their top risk for 2019, ahead of damages from cyberattacks, financial instability, and terrorism—drawing strong parallels with the results of this year’s Global Risk Report.

    These growing concerns are well-founded. 2017 was the costliest year on record for natural disasters, with $344 billion in global economic losses. This daunting figure translated to a record year for insured losses, totalling $140 billion.

    Although insured losses over 2019 have fallen back in line with the average over the past 10 years, Munich RE believes that long-term environmental effects are already being felt:

    • Recent studies have shown that over the long term, the environmental conditions for bushfires in Australia have become more favorable;

    • Despite a decrease in U.S. wildfire losses compared to previous years, there is a rising long-term trend for forest area burned in the U.S.;

    • An increase in hailstorms, as a result of climate change, has been shown to contribute to growing losses across the globe.

    The Ball Is In Our Court

    It’s clear that the environmental issues we face are beginning to have a larger real impact. Despite growing awareness and preliminary actions such as fossil fuel divestment, the Global Risk Report stresses that there is much more work to be done to mitigate risks.

    How companies and governments choose to respond over the next decade will be a focal point of many discussions to come.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 21:30

  • Stocks, Yuan, Bond Yields Tumble As Fears Over Coronavirus Outbreak Spread
    Stocks, Yuan, Bond Yields Tumble As Fears Over Coronavirus Outbreak Spread

    Dow futures are down over 100 points, AsiaPac equity markets are down harder, and Treasuries are well bid along with gold after a Chinese officials confirmed the coronavirus can be spread by human-to-human contact, and the deadly disease is spreading to other asian nations.

    “Now we can say it is certain that it is a human-to-human transmission phenomenon,” Zhong Nanshan, a scientist who is leading a government-appointed expert panel on the outbreak, said in an interview on state-run television on Monday.

    As The New York Times reports, cases have been reported outside China.

    The authorities in Thailand detected the new coronavirus last week in two Chinese women who had flown from Wuhan to Bangkok on separate trips. The government said the women, aged 74 and 61, were in good condition.

    In Japan, a Chinese man who returned from Wuhan on Jan. 6 was also confirmed to have the disease. He was discharged after five days in a hospital.

    South Korea confirmed its first case of the coronavirus on Monday in a 35-year-old Chinese woman from Wuhan who arrived on Sunday at Incheon International Airport, which serves Seoul.

    The woman was found with a fever, muscle pain and other symptoms while going through customs and was immediately quarantined for tests, said Jung Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The woman was traveling with five other people intending to spend the Lunar New Year holidays in South Korea and Japan, Ms. Jung said. South Korean officials were running tests on anyone believed to have come in contact with the woman in the plane, she said.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And fear of a SARS 2.0 outbreak have sparked risk-off trades in early Asia trading.

    “There are now sufficient cases that it’s not going to die out by chance,” said Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College London who has studied the new virus.

    “The real question now is, how efficiently can this virus spread from person to person?”

    Hong Kong’s Hang Seng is down notably…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As are US futures…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And yuan is being dumped…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bonds are bid…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Along with gold…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s leader, Xi Jinping, said on Monday that the outbreak “must be taken seriously” and that every possible measure should be taken to contain it, according to the state broadcaster CCTV.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 21:01

  • Flynn's Lawyer: FBI Agents Wrote Flynn Didn't Lie, We Have Eyewitness
    Flynn’s Lawyer: FBI Agents Wrote Flynn Didn’t Lie, We Have Eyewitness

    Authored by Peter Svab via TheEpochTimes.com,

    Sidney Powell, lawyer to Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said the FBI excluded crucial information from a report on their interview of her client. The report, an FBI 302 form, was used to charge Flynn with lying to the FBI, but the original draft of the 302 stated that Flynn was honest with the FBI agents, according to a witness who saw the draft, said Powell.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, to one count of lying to FBI agents during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview.

    A 302 report summarizing the interview was supposed to be filed within five days. But the earliest draft Flynn’s lawyers were provided was from Feb. 10, 2017 – more than two weeks after the interview.

    Powell, who took over Flynn’s defense in June 2019, has for months asserted that an earlier 302 must exist. Prosecutors have said they don’t have it, stopping short of asserting that it doesn’t exist.

    In an Oct. 24, 2019, court filing (pdf), Powell rejected the suggestion that the 302 draft was “missing,” saying neither the bureau nor its digital document system “loses the most important of its reports that is supposed to support the federal felony of the President’s National Security Adviser.”

    On Jan. 16, Powell disclosed that she has a witness who could attest to what was in the original draft.

    “I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents and did not lie,” she told Larry O’Connor on his WMAL radio show.

    “So for somebody to delete that from the 302 is just beyond outrageous.”

    She wouldn’t elaborate much further when asked by The Epoch Times.

    “Can’t say more about witness but yes, person saw it,” she said via email.

    Withdrawing Plea

    Flynn was expected to receive a light sentence because of cooperation with the government on two investigations—one led by then-special counsel Robert Mueller and the other in the Eastern District of Virginia against Flynn’s former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian.

    In a Jan. 7 sentencing memo (pdf), however, prosecutors asked for up to six months in prison for Flynn, saying he pulled back his cooperation in the Rafiekian case last year.

    In response to the memo, Flynn asked the court on Jan. 14 (pdf) to allow him to withdraw his original plea, saying the prosecutors violated the terms of the agreement.

    Rafiekian was charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent based on a job that Flynn’s now-defunct consultancy, Flynn Intel Group (FIG), did for Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin.

    Flynn wasn’t charged in that case and Rafiekian was ultimately acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

    In June 2019, after Flynn fired his original lawyers and hired a new legal team led by Powell, prosecutors asked Flynn to testify that he signed FIG’s lobbying forms knowing there were lies in them. He refused, saying he only learned there was something wrong with the registration in retrospect.

    That angered the lead prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack, notes from a June 27, 2019, conference call indicate.

    Powell said that ever since then, the prosecutors’ behavior has been “retaliatory, vindictive, and in bad faith” because Flynn refused to lie.

    In a Jan. 16 court filing (pdf), she disclosed documents that, in her view, indicate the prosecutors knew they were asking for a false statement.

    She previously asked Judge Emmet Sullivan to order the government to hand over a plethora of documents she said were exculpatory to Flynn. She said the case should be dismissed for government misconduct, including for withholding the documents. Sullivan denied the request.

    Top Brass Witnesses

    Powell said in the WMAL radio interview that if Sullivan allows the plea withdrawal and the case goes to trial, she will call witnesses including former FBI Director James Comey, his former deputy, Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and the “agent who cannot be named,” referring to Special Agent Joe Pientka.

    It was Strzok and Pientka who interviewed Flynn, while Comey and McCabe were involved in planning the interview. Powell previously requested Clapper’s phone records to “confirm” whether he communicated with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, “especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn,’” she said.

    Ignatius and Van Grack, the leading prosecutor in the Flynn case, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. An FBI spokesman declined to comment. An attempt to reach Clapper for comment was unsuccessful.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 20:40

    Tags

  • McConnell Gives Democrats Just Two Days For Trump Impeachment Trial In Senate
    McConnell Gives Democrats Just Two Days For Trump Impeachment Trial In Senate

    House impeachment managers will have just two days to prosecute their case against President Donald Trump according to a resolution circulated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a move meant to accelerates the timetable for a trial Republicans intend to end in a speedy acquittal. President Trump’s team will also have two days to present their arguments and then senators will have a chance to ask questions and consider subpoenas of witnesses.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to The Hill, both sides will have 24 hours to make their first round of arguments, the same amount of time House impeachment managers and Bill Clinton’s lawyers received in 1999, but it limits them to just two days each, instead of the three allowed in Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial more than 20 years ago.  A Senate GOP leadership aide noted that prosecutors in the Clinton trial didn’t use all of their allotted time and finished their opening arguments within three days.

    The resolution does not require additional witnesses to be subpoenaed, much to the anger of Democrats, and does not allow House prosecutors to admit evidence into the Senate trial record until after the opening arguments are heard. The rules would also allow the president’s team to seek a quick dismissal of the charges, though many Republican senators have said they should at least hear the case.

    In response, the top Senate Democrat, Charles Schumer quickly pushed back and vowed to force votes on amendments. “Sen. McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace,” Schumer said in a statement Monday afternoon, further accusing McConnell of casting aside public statements that he would use the same rules as under the Clinton trial, adding that the majority leader is clearly “hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Schumer also said in a statement Monday evening that he will offer amendments to alter “the many flaws” in a “deeply unfair proposal,” as well as to subpoena further witnesses and documents.

    The resolution also includes language favored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other GOP moderates requiring a debate and vote on subpoenaing new witnesses and documents.

    Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who worked with McConnell and Collins to modify the resolution, said it “guarantees a vote on whether we need additional evidence at the appropriate time.”

    Schumer argues that forcing House managers to cram their opening arguments into a two-day window will force them to present on the Senate floor well into the evening and possibly past midnight.

    “McConnell’s resolution stipulates that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night simply because he doesn’t want the American people to hear them,” Schumer said.

    According to the resolution, House managers will be allowed to begin their arguments 1 p.m. Wednesday.  

    In response, a Senate GOP leadership aide told the Hill that in 1999, the House prosecutors and the president’s defense team each used fewer than 12 hours over a three-day period. “This resolution provides the same time but more structure for the arguments,” the aide said. The resolution also provides 16 hours for senators to ask questions.

    In another departure from the 1999 organizing resolution, McConnell’s measure does not allow evidence from the House impeachment inquiry to be entered into the Senate trial record until after the question of additional witnesses and documents receives consideration. McConnell reportedly did this in response to Trump’s lawyers not having the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the House hearings.

    “The White House was denied due process throughout the 12 weeks of partisan House proceedings,” the source said.

    Additionally, according to McConnell’s resolution if the Senate votes at the end of phase one against subpoenaing witnesses, then it will not be possible to consider additional motions on specific witnesses. Democrats have said they want to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, senior White House adviser Robert Blair and senior Office of Management Budget official Michael Duffey.

    The Senate will vote on the resolution Tuesday.

    Schumer called on moderate Republican colleagues to reconsider McConnell’s aggressive timeline: “Any senator that votes for the McConnell resolution will be voting to hide information and evidence,” he said in his statement.

    “I will be offering amendments to address the many flaws in this deeply unfair proposal and to subpoena the witnesses and documents we have requested,” he added.

    * * *

    The White House immediately backed McConnell’s rules, but didn’t indicate whether it would press a quick vote on a motion to dismiss.

    “Protecting the president’s rights to offer pretrial motions was critical for us to support the package, and we’re very gratified with the resolution,” said Eric Ueland, the White House’s liaison to Congress. “I’m not going to talk about trial strategy publicly.”

    “It makes sense” to file a motion to dismiss because in every criminal case where there is no wrongdoing, you should try and get a dismissal, Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s defense team, said in an interview Monday evening.

    Earlier on Monday, the White House and impeachment managers from the House of Representatives released a pair of filings where both sides argued that constitutional separation of powers is at stake in the trial.

    The president’s 171-page filing contends that the House failed to prove that the president explicitly linked aid for Ukraine to an investigation Trump sought into political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden. And the president’s lawyers argued that the Senate should swiftly reject the impeachment articles.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 20:15

  • Hundreds Of NYC Subway Doors Are Being Pulled From Service Due To Malfunctions
    Hundreds Of NYC Subway Doors Are Being Pulled From Service Due To Malfunctions

    As many New Yorkers already know, nothing exemplifies government efficiency better than Manhattan’s Metro Transportation Authority. Complaining about it is part of what being a New York resident is all about – just ask the Wall Street Journal’s Charley Grant, who takes to Twitter at least one a week to air his grievances with the city’s public transit. 

    The latest on the MTA “Wall of Fame” has been an announcement this week that more than 300 New York City subway cars were pulled from service on Wednesday due to “unreliable door mechanisms”, which has of course, raised questions about how the MTA is spending the hundreds of millions of dollars paid to it by taxpayers.

    The MTA has had repeated problems with Bombardier, who is being blamed for the issue. Past problems with Bombardier include late delivery that resulted in Bombardier compensating the MTA with 18 additional R179 cars. The agency said none of them are operational. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    New York City Transit President Andy Byford, who oversees subways for the MTA, told Bloomberg: “Out of an abundance of caution, NYCT removed all R179 train cars from service overnight for thorough inspection and re-deployed other spare cars to continue service for this morning’s rush and ensure minimal impacts to customers.”

    “We intend to hold the company fully accountable,” Byford continued.

    A spokeswoman for Bombardier blamed the issue on a Chinese company, Kangni Mechanical & Electrical Co Ltd., that supplied the doors.

    She said: “Our investigation shows that the doors were not properly calibrated by Kangni. We value our partnership with New York City Transit and are fully committed to providing high quality, reliable, safe rail cars.”

    Bombardier said it would inspect all of its NYC cars for safety. The cars in question would make up about 5% of the city’s 5,400-car subway fleet.

    The city’s comptroller, Scott Stringer, found last month in a report that over the city’s seven year contract with Bombardier, the company consistently failed to meet deadlines and produce acceptable work. The audit also found that the MTA had dropped the ball by not overseeing Bombardier’s contract closer. 

    “Bombardier sold us lemons,” Stringer said.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 20:15

  • What's Really Behind America's "Russia Problem"
    What’s Really Behind America’s “Russia Problem”

    Via 21stCenturyWire.com,

    RINSE AND REPEAT:

    • Back in 1996, Time Magazine crowed about how a team of American “specialists” helped Boris Yeltsin get re-elected.

    • In 2016, the US media flipped the script, now howling about how Vladimir Putin supposedly aided the Trump campaign.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Russia helped Trump get elected!”, and “The Russians interfered in the 2016 US elections!”, and “The Russians have attacked our democracy!” etc.

    Incredibly, these precepts still govern the parameters of political discourse for so many political and media operatives and these same beliefs have filtered down through to a large portion of the American electorate. But are they actually true, and why is it still forbidden to question any these sweeping statements? Is America’s reoccurring obsession fueling a permanent  case of western xenophobia against Russia?

    The following video presents an insightful conversation between high-profile pundits with opposing views, with veteran US news anchorman, Dan Rather, joined by renowned expert in US-Russian relations, Dr Stephen F. Cohen, and his wife Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation magazine. Watch:

    Towards the end of the discussion (around the 55 min mark), Dan Rather shows how he still holds firm to Official Washington’s conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with the Russians, but that nonetheless – we should all withhold our final judgment until the much-anticipated Mueller Report was released. Well, not long after this discussion, the Mueller Report did come out – but unfortunately for Rather, and for so many other true believers in Russiagate’s political mythology, there was no evidence of any collusion or interference. Mueller attempted to prove ‘meddling’ by indicting mysterious GRU Russian hackers, but even this turned out to be a groundless accusation. Real Clear Investigations explains:

    While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump’s victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred “principally” on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

    But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved…

    Sadly, even a decorated journalist and American institution like Rather could not free himself from the mainstream’s inbred media echo chamber, where most mainstream Establishment figures are still permanently wed to this national security state narrative. In the run-up to the 2020 Democratic Primaries, Rather continues to disseminate irrational fears that Putin is behind the latest political skirmishes between party front-runners – yet another example in a long line of evidence-free assertions which have appeared daily in western media since 2016.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    To any sober observer, all of this might sound like pure lunacy. But liberal America’s unhealthy fetish with Russia isn’t going away just yet and in fact, it continues to get worse, as the usual culprits now doubling-down on this losing formula in 2020.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 19:50

    Tags

  • New Video Shows Syrian Mercenaries Patrolling Streets Of Libyan Capital
    New Video Shows Syrian Mercenaries Patrolling Streets Of Libyan Capital

    A day after France’s Emmanuel Macron condemned Turkey’s transferring Free Syrian Army (FSA) militants to fight in Libya at the Berlin peace conference, a new video has surfaced and is going viral which shows a group of foreign fighters strolling through the streets of Tripoli. 

    The regional publication Libya Review describes the short video as featuring a group of Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries walking through the capital city. Macron on Sunday slammed Turkey’s program to send thousands of jihadists to fight Gen. Khalifa Haftar in Libya. Macron expressed “acute concerns over the arrival of Syrian and foreign fighters in the city of Tripoli” which “must end”. Erdogan, Putin, Macron, Pompeo and other leaders were present for the talks which produced little definitive agreements other than common commitment to cease the flow of foreign weapons and fighters. 

    According the Middle East news site Al-Masdar, one of the militants appears to be a Syrian teenager, and another greets the group with “Libya welcomes you”:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The video was actually published by Libya Review on the very day of the Berlin conference on Libyan peace. 

    It also comes days after separate video surfaced showing dozens of Syrian jihadists being flown into Tripoli on a commercial jet, in confirmation of a bombshell Guardian report which said some 2,000 Syrian mercenaries sponsored by Turkey were due to enter the Libyan battlefield in support of the government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj (GNA).

    Despite Macron and other European leaders condemning the foreign fighter influx Sunday, Serraj gave a subsequent interview saying he’ll welcome any external support. He was asked point blank in the interview about the Syrians, and seemed to support the now not-so “covert” initiative. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the conflict Haftar’s Libyan National Army has accused both Erdogan and the GNA of fueling the rebirth of ISIS in the region. 

    Late last week the Pentagon actually confirmed a “small” resurgence in the Islamic State’s numbers in Libya, with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Paul Selva, voicing concern that ISIS was being given breathing room to reconstitute as a “third party in the fight in Libya.”

    But then the hypocrisy of France and the US expressing “concern” over terrorists in Libya is rich, considering it was their own 2011 military intervention against Gaddafi and support for jihadist “rebels” which created the current crisis in the first place. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As we’ve mentioned before, the war Libyan proxy war 2.0 is set to be among 2020’s most devastating and deadly geopolitical crises. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 19:25

  • Are Consumers Nearing The End Of Their Road Of Debt?
    Are Consumers Nearing The End Of Their Road Of Debt?

    Via SchiffGold.com,

    Are consumers getting close to the end of their road of debt?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There are some indications that they might be and that’s not good news for an economy built on consumers spending money they don’t have.

    Total consumer debt grew and set yet another new record in November, according to the most recent data released by the Federal Reserve. But the rate of growth slowed and credit card debt contracted slightly for the third month out of the last four.

    Total consumer debt grew by $12.5 billion to $4.176 trillion. (Seasonally adjusted). That represents an annual growth rate of 3.6%, down from 5.5% in October.

    The Fed consumer debt figures include credit card debt, student loans and auto loans, but do not factor in mortgage debt.

    Revolving credit outstanding, primarily credit card debt, fell by $2.4 billion, a 2.7% decline. That was offset by a healthy increase of $14.9 billion (5.8%) in non-revolving credit, including student loans, automobile loans and financing for other big-ticket purchases.

    Even with the decline in revolving credit card debt, Americans still owe nearly $1.1 trillion on their plastic.

    But the overall trend in borrowing has fallen over the last six months and credit card borrowing has taken a noticeably steep downturn.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some are taking the sagging level of borrowing as a warning sign. As one analyst put it in an article on Seeking Alpha:

    It could be that the consumer end of the economy has reached the point at which it cannot add any more debt. Unlike the federal government which has sovereign dollars to print, the consumer has a fixed amount they can spend including paying back any loans.”

    Generally, consumer spending and consumer debt tend to move in the same direction. In other words, the drop in borrowing could indicate consumers are shutting their wallets.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The drop in credit card spending in November could have been due to consumers paying off balances in preparation for the holiday shopping season. Retail sales showed a healthy increase in December and holiday spending was up a little over 4% year-on-year. We may well see another increase in credit card debt when the December report comes out. But the longer-term downward trend in borrowing should cause concern if your focus is on economic growth.

    There is also anecdotal evidence that Americans are getting in over their heads when it comes to debt. A Northwestern Mutual study in 2019 found that many millennials are drowning in credit card debt. The study found that “it’s from going out to dinner and travel.”

    The truth is American consumers have been driving the US economy with money they don’t have. If they are getting close to maxing out the credit cards, that doesn’t bode well for future economic growth. If that moment isn’t upon us yet, it will be at some point in the not-to-distant future.

    A large percentage of US GDP growth comes from consumer spending. Headlines have lauded the American consumer for “rescuing the US economy.” But as Peter Schiff has said, if that’s the case, who is going to rescue the consumer?

    If you look at where the consumer is getting that money, it’s from credit. Year-over-year, consumer debt has increased by 5%. So, what is driving consumer spending is debt.”

    Peter has also said the huge levels of debt could indicate that the economy isn’t as great as the pundits keep telling us.

    If an economy really is strong, you would think consumers would be taking on less credit card debt because they wouldn’t need it. They would be able to buy more stuff that they could actually afford. They wouldn’t have to go into debt. Because credit card debt is the worst possible debt because the interest rate is so high on credit card debt. If you can afford to pay off your credit card, you’re going to pay it off.

    The question is how much money can American consumers borrow before the bubble pops? In effect, consumers are taking from the future to spend in the present. Whether driven by confidence or desperation, debt-fueled spending can’t go on forever. Credit cards have this inconvenient thing called a limit. What happens when the future arrives? Every dime borrowed eventually has to be paid off.

    During an appearance on RT Boom Bust, Peter took on this notion that the US consumer has never been in better shape.

    The consumer is completely levered up. He has record amounts of debt.  And the only reason he can spend is because the Fed is keeping rates low enough so that credit continues to flow despite the lack of legitimate savings to finance it. So, this whole house of cards is going to come tumbling down and the consumer is going to be right in the center of that.”

    In a word, the situation is unsustainable and American consumers could be getting close to the end of their road of debt.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 19:00

  • China Coronavirus Outbreak Spreads; Hundreds Infected As Human-To-Human Transmission Confirmed
    China Coronavirus Outbreak Spreads; Hundreds Infected As Human-To-Human Transmission Confirmed

    Health officials in Wuhan, China reported 139 new cases of a new mystery virus over the weekend, now rapidly spreading to other provinces and surrounding countries, reported CNN.

    As of Monday morning, three people have died from the pneumonia-like illness, and globally there have been more than 200 reported cases, noted Reuters

    Beijing confirmed two cases of coronavirus Monday, while Guangdong health officials reported one case in Shenzhen – these are the first reports that the virus is quickly spreading from Wuhan, the epicenter. 

    On Sunday, the World Health Organization (WHO) said the virus originated from a seafood/meat market in Wuhan, has likely spread through human-to-human transmission.

    “It is clear that there is at least some human-to-human transmission from the evidence we have, but we don’t have clear evidence that shows the virus has acquired the capacity to transmit among humans easily,” said Takeshi Kasai, the WHO’s regional director for the western pacific, in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Monday. “We need more information to analyze that.”

    There are significant concerns about a broader regional outbreak, reports Sunday warned the virus was detected outside China – two in Thailand and one in Japan. 

    The South Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (SKCDC) confirmed Monday that a 35-year-old woman arriving at Incheon International Airport from Wuhan tested positive for coronavirus.

    “She was immediately separated for treatment in quarantine at a state-designated hospital,” the SKCDC said.

    China’s National Health Commission confirmed Monday that the virus has occurred via human-to-human transmission. This has worried officials in the country and in surrounding countries ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday, in which millions of Chinese tourists are expected to travel across the region, could lead to a widespread outbreak of the virus. 

    More than 7 million Chinese traveled overseas last year during the holiday season.

    “I believe Chinese tourists will bring the virus to many other countries in Asia in the coming days, due to their overseas travels during the Lunar New Year holiday,” Professor David Hui Shu-Cheong, a respiratory expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told CNN Monday.

    Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London warned late last week that upwards of 1,700 in Wuhan had been infected with the virus.

    Airports in Singapore and Hong Kong have been screening passengers from Wuhan, while three US airports (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York) announced similar measures last week.

    Investors on Monday dumped Chinese airline and casino stocks over fears a widespread outbreak of the virus could lead to lower holiday traffic.

    Air China plunged 7.5% in Hong Kong to a one-month low, and China Southern Airlines and China Eastern Airlines were both down at least 3%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Macau gaming stocks dropped by 4%, the most since last August, with SJM Holdings down 5.6% and Sands China -5%. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Shares of duty-free store operator Dufry fell nearly 7% on Monday over concerns the spread of the virus could lead to decreased air travel. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mandy Jia, an analyst at SWS, told Bloomberg that investors sold casino stocks because the outbreak of the virus could lead to depressed holiday traffic.

    If China and other Asian countries fail to control the spread of the virus during the upcoming holiday season, and a broader outbreak is seen, this could be a risk-off event for global equity markets. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 18:45

  • China Releases Video Of World's Largest Three-Engine Utility-Attack Drone
    China Releases Video Of World’s Largest Three-Engine Utility-Attack Drone

    A rising global superpower must have an advanced aerospace industry to sustain dominance. When it comes to drone development, China has been rapidly advancing the technology and exporting the aircraft across the world — taking precious market share away from the U.S. 

    Chinese media is reporting that Chengdu-based Tengden Technology Co. has developed the world’s largest and first three-engine drone — took off from an airfield in southwest China late last week. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chengdu Daily said the design of the drone is a world-first. The wingspan of the aircraft stretches 60 ft., and the aircraft’s main body section is 33 ft. long. It’s equipped with three-piston engines, with one on each side of the wing, along with one mounted on the rear of the plane, allowing it to have a maximum takeoff weight of 3.2 tons and fly for 35 hours. 

    The drone has a flight ceiling of about 31,000 ft. with a top speed of about 200 mph, Chengdu Daily said, adding that the plane has been designed for airfields in plateau regions.

    The pusher configuration, an engine mounted on the rear of the plane, allows it to carry more payload and take off from shorter runways. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The drone is a multifunction aircraft that will allow the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) to fly attack and surveillance missions. 

    Chengdu Daily said it could also be used for disaster relief, forest firefighting, geographic mapping, meteorological observation, and aerial communications relay.

    Tengoen Technology expects the drone to be in series production in the near term for delivery to clients in the second half of 2021. 

    China has become the top country, controlling at least 70% of the world’s civilian drone market, via the Shenzhen-based drone giant SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. 

    China’s military drones are also gaining market share across the world, with increased sales to Middle East countries. 

    China’s rapid ascension as a global superpower has been made part by its manufacturing hub, along with many advances in technologies, including artificial intelligence, automation, drones, and hypersonics. This has angered the Trump administration, who is threatening to ban all DJI products from federal agencies and has created fearmongering campaigns of how Chinese-made drones could be susceptible to hacks. Even the Pentagon has felt threatened by Chinese military drones because increased sales to the Middle East and other parts of the world have taken away market share from General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 18:35

  • The Fed Is Stuck In QE Hell
    The Fed Is Stuck In QE Hell

    Authored by Howard Gold, op-ed via MarketWatch.com,

    Imagine doing the same thing over and over again, with little progress and no relief. Sounds like most people’s vision of hell – or the Federal Reserve’s current predicament.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Since September, the central bank, through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has been purchasing securities hand over fist to alleviate short-term pressures in the overnight money markets. It has used repurchase (“repo”) and reverse repurchase (“reverse repo”) agreements to provide liquidity and keep overnight borrowing rates from spiking.

    But these complex money market operations already have caused the Fed to buy a net $400 billion worth of securities, after Chairman Jerome Powell shrank the Fed’s balance sheet by $700 billion. That “normalization,” which also included raising the federal funds rate through late 2018, is now effectively dead and the Fed’s balance sheet is growing again.

    Powell and the Fed have repeatedly denied this is a new phase of “quantitative easing (QE),” three rounds of which added $3.6 trillion to the Fed’s balance sheet in the years after the financial crisis. And indeed, in the earlier rounds of QE, the central bank bought Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities of various maturities. The current buying has been focused on Treasuries with maturities of 12 months or less.

    On the way: QE4

    But that may not continue, says Danielle DiMartino Booth, CEO and chief strategist at Quill Intelligence, a Dallas-based boutique research firm. Booth, who worked on both Wall Street and in the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has been a critic of Fed policies since the central bank pushed fed funds down to near zero and launched its three rounds of QE after the financial crisis. (She also was one of the few people to connect the dots between the housing bust and Wall Street before the crisis hit.)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Danielle DiMartino Booth, CEO of Dallas-based research firm Quill Intelligence, says the Federal Reserve is on the cusp of enacting QE4, or may already be there.

    Booth thinks we’re on the cusp of QE4, or may already be there.

    “We’ve surpassed the $400 billion mark,” she said in a phone interview.

    “They call it ‘not QE’ because it’s maturities of 12 months or less and therefore presupposed to roll over within 12 months.”

    But as of now, she says, “we have a $100-billion-per-month run rate of ‘not QE.’ ”

    Booth acknowledges there’s a qualitative difference between current operations and the Fed’s QE policy of buying longer-dated securities, particularly mortgage-backed bonds, which also helped boost the housing market. And the current efforts to stabilize the overnight money markets may run through at least April, after tax season.

    But she thinks the Fed is laying the groundwork for securities purchases to continue after that.

    “The Fed will tell you it’s all technical in nature,” she said.

    “In their last minutes, they said that if they had to move into [longer] coupons, they would. So the table has been set.”

    This all comes, Booth believes, amid a weakening economy.

    “We’ve just had commercial and industrial lending turn negative on a year-over year basis,” she told me.

    “Not only have banks become less willing to extend the commercial and industrial loans, there has also been less demand for them.”

    “We’re probably in our third quarter of contracting industrial production. That’s a huge red flag for the economy,” she said.

    Economists forecast gross domestic product (GDP) growth of around 2% this year, but just in case the economy weakens, the Fed might think it’s good to have some “not QE” insurance on hand.

    In a recent speech, former Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said that “the effects of asset purchases on yields were long-lasting and economically significant,” resulting in an impact of 120 basis points (1.2 percentage points) in 10-year Treasury yields.

    Record-high stock prices

    But he also said “the expected effects of the programs were already incorporated into market prices by the time of the formal announcements,” which suggests to me that at least some of QE’s impact was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    That implies that what investors think the Fed is doing is at least as important as what it’s actually doing, and I’m seeing a lot of chatter about QE4 over the last couple of days, a big reason why the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500  hover near all-time highs.

    Booth points out that by several measures, “outside of the year 2000 the stock market has never been as overvalued,” which means stock markets more than ever hinge on the Fed’s every move.

    That’s why I think if there are any signs of economic weakness by spring — particularly in manufacturing and the industrial economy — the Fed will find a way to keep the bond buying going, while calling it anything but QE.

    “We have certainly started to see some signs of slowing, and I think Jay Powell is trapped,” said Booth.

    “The Fed is trying to keep a bucket filled with holes full.”

    Welcome to QE — or not QE — hell.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 18:10

  • Baltic Dry Continues Epic Plunge As IMF Slashes Global GDP Forecast
    Baltic Dry Continues Epic Plunge As IMF Slashes Global GDP Forecast

    The Baltic Exchange’s main sea freight index hit a nine-month low on Monday, dragged down by falling rates of capesize and panamax segments as world trade continues to slump. 

    The Baltic Dry Index, which tracks rates for capesize, panamax and supramax vessels that ferry dry bulk commodities across the world, dropped 25 points, or 3.3%, to 729 (according to Refinitiv data), the lowest level since April 2019:

    • The capesize index .BACI dropped 119 points, or 16.7%, to 593 – its lowest since April 23.The index registered its 27th straight session of losses, and also its largest daily percentage loss since early April.

    • Average daily earnings for capesizes, which typically transport 170,000-180,000 tonne cargoes including iron ore and coal, fell $592 to $7,760.

    • The panamax index .BPNI lost 4 points, or 0.5%, to 866.

    • Average daily earnings for panamaxes, which usually carry coal or grain cargoes of about 60,000 tonnes to 70,000 tonnes, declined $39 to $7,791.

    • The supramax index .BSIS remained unchanged at 560 points.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    We’ve noted how the “front-loading” effect ahead of tariff deadlines ended in late 3Q19 when the first signs of a trade resolution emerged between the U.S. and China. 

    In the last four months, the Baltic index has crashed 70%, the most since 2008, and has confirmed our slowbalisation thoughts.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The chart below makes clear that the spike in shipping rates was a one-off event spurred by importers front-running tariffs in 2019, now that is over, shipping rates are plunging as a manufacturing recession in the U.S. deepens and across the world. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And it was no surprise to us Monday that the IMF slashed the global economic outlook for 2019 to 2.9% in October, the lowest since the financial crisis, and warned that global trade growth is “close to a standstill.” 

    The Baltic Dry Index is seen as a leading indicator that provides a clear view of the global demand for commodities and raw materials.  

    The IMF also downgraded its forecast for global GDP for 2020 and 2021, its sixth straight reduction, although in a sliver of optimism, global GDP in 2020 is now expected to post a modest rebound from 2.9% to 3.3%, (down from 3.4% in October) and to 3.4% in 2021 (down from 3.6%) as the IMF says “there are now tentative signs that global growth may be stabilizing, though at subdued levels.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, the IMF warned that there are “few signs of turning points are yet visible in global macroeconomic data.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 01/20/2020 – 17:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 20th January 2020

  • $6.4 Trillion And Counting – How The Military-Industrial Complex Hijacked The War On Terror
    $6.4 Trillion And Counting – How The Military-Industrial Complex Hijacked The War On Terror

    Authored by Eric Margolis,

    Ike Was Right!

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

    Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.”

    General Dwight D Eisenhower
    Farewell address 1961

    Congress just passed a near trillion dollar military budget at a time when the United States faces no evident state threats at home or abroad. Ike was right.

    Illustrating Ike’s prescient warning, Brown University’s respected Watson Institute just released a major study which found that the so-called ‘wars on terror’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan have cost US taxpayers $6.4 trillion since they began in 2001.

    The extensive study found that over 800,000 people have died as a result of these military operations, a third of them civilians. An additional 21 million civilians have been displaced by US military operations. According to the Pentagon, these US wars have so far cost each American taxpayer $7,623 – and that’s a very conservative estimate.

    Most of this money has been quietly added to the US national debt of over $23 trillion. Wars on credit hide the true cost and pain from the public.

    As General Eisenhower warned, military spending has engulfed the nation.

    A trillion annual military budget represents just about half the world’s military expenditures. The Pentagon, which I’ve visited numerous times, is bustling with activity as if the nation was on a permanent war footing.

    The combined US intelligence budget of some $80 billion is larger than Russia’s total military budget of $63 billion. US troops, warplanes and naval vessels are stationed around the globe, including, most lately, across Africa. And yet every day the media trumpets new ‘threats’ to the US. Trump is sending more troops to the Mideast while claiming he wants to reduce America’s powerful military footprint there. Our military is always in search of new missions. These operations generate promotions and pay raises, new equipment and a reason for being.

    Back in the day, the Republican Party of General Eisenhower was a centrist conservative’s party with a broad world view, dedicated to lower taxes and somewhat smaller government. It was led by the Rockefellers and educated Easterners with a broad world view and respect for tradition.

    Today’s Republican Party is a collection of rural interests from flyover country, handmaidens of the military industrial complex and, most important, militant evangelical Christians who see the world through the spectrum of the Old Testament. Israel’s far right has come to dominate American evangelists by selling them a bill of goods about the End of Days and the Messiah’s return. Many of these rubes see Trump as a quasi-religious figure.

    Mix the religious cultists – about 25% of the US population – with the farm and Israel lobbies and the mighty military industrial complex and no wonder the United States has veered off into the deep waters of irrationality and crusading ardor. The US can still afford such bizarre behavior thanks to its riches, magic green dollar, endless supply of credit and a poorly educated, apathetic public too besotted by sports and TV sitcoms to understand what’s going on abroad.

    All the war party needs is a steady supply of foreign villains (preferably Muslims) who can be occasionally bombed back to the early Islamic age. Americans have largely forgotten George W. Bush’s lurid claims that Iraqi drones of death were poised to shower poisons on the sleeping nation. Even the Soviets never ventured so deep into the sea of absurdity.

    The military industrial complex does not care to endanger its gold-plated F-35 stealth aircraft and $13 billion apiece aircraft carriers in a real war against real powers. Instead, the war party likes little wars against weak opponents who can barely shoot back. State-run TV networks thrill to such minor scraps with fancy headlines and martial music. Think of the glorious little wars against Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Iran looks next.

    The more I listen to his words, the more I like Ike.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 23:45

  • These States Face Biggest Job Losses From Automation
    These States Face Biggest Job Losses From Automation

    Aside from the rantings of a small group of eccentric billionaires, humanity is mostly unprepared for the advent of automation and its impact on an economy that is already exhibiting unprecedented levels of wealth concentration among the wealthy. Some have estimated that automation will destroy 800 million jobs over the next ten years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But if you’re trying to plan a career, or a life, that can withstand the transformative impact of automation, a team of researchers at Kempler Industries has analyzed data from the BLS Occupational Employment Statistics and determined the percent of potential job loss in different industries across all 50 US states.

    Their findings are broken down in the map below:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The study also breaks job losses down by metropolitan area, with Las Vegas and Orlando taking the top two slots.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In order to create a foundation for this analysis, we looked at the top 170 most “at-risk” occupations, according to the University of Oxford’s “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation” study.

    When looking at the data, it’s clear that no state is immune to automation. Overall, roughly 41 million, or 28% of all U.S. jobs, are most susceptible to automation. Occupations within the service industry are some of the hardest hit in terms of being at risk for automation, specifically cashiers, retail salespersons and fast food employees.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 23:20

    Tags

  • The Military And State Can't Handle The Trump Truth
    The Military And State Can’t Handle The Trump Truth

    Authored by Larry Johnson via Sic Semper Tyrannis blog,

    An excerpt from a soon to be released book, “A Very Stable Genius” (which appeared in Saturday’s edition of the Washington Post) apparently was written with the intent of presenting Donald Trump as a crazed, unstable individual.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The authors of this hit job (two Washington Post reporters) clearly relied on Rex Tillerson, Gary Cohn and Jim Mattis as primary sources. But rather than expose Trump as mentally unfit to be President, the authors unwittingly expose their own extreme bias and highlight how the men Trump named to key positions in his administration–Tillerson at State, Cohn at the White House and Mattis at DOD–tried to undermine the President and drug their feet in carrying out Trump’s directives.

    These men, in my view, are bureaucratic cowards. They should have resigned if they felt so strongly about Trump’s violations. But they wanted to hang on to their little pieces of turf.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The piece is introduced with this telling paragraph:

    So on July 20, 2017, Mattis invited Trump to the Tank for what he, Tillerson, and Cohn had carefully organized as a tailored tutorial. What happened inside the Tank that day crystallized the commander in chief’s berating, derisive and dismissive manner, foreshadowing decisions such as the one earlier this month that brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. The Tank meeting was a turning point in Trump’s presidency. Rather than getting him to appreciate America’s traditional role and alliances, Trump began to tune out and eventually push away the experts who believed their duty was to protect the country by restraining his more dangerous impulses.



    Yep. Trump’s a bad, crazy, deranged individual because he did not want to continue the failed policies of the last 20 years. That’s the complaint of these Deep Staters in a nutshell. And Donald Trump, unlike the serpentine politicians that infest Washington, did not speak praise to the faces of these clowns and then backstab them in the press and to other members of his Administration. Nope. He called them out to their face. Can’t have that. Telling people off to their faces is just so uncouth. Always better, according to the Swamp creatures, to say one thing to a person’s face and then trash the hell out of them when they are not around.

    Let’s look at the key issues discussed in this brief that put the reporters panties in a knot.

    “The post-war international rules-based order is the greatest gift of the greatest generation.” Mattis then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the United States safe.

    Trump’s response should not have surprised these guys if they had paid attention to the campaign:

    We should make money off of everything.

    ”
Trump proceeded to explain that NATO, too, was worthless. U.S. generals were letting the allied member countries get away with murder, he said, and they owed the United States a lot of money after not living up to their promise of paying their dues.
“They’re in arrears,” Trump said, reverting to the language of real estate. He lifted both his arms at his sides in frustration. Then he scolded top officials for the untold millions of dollars he believed they had let slip through their fingers by allowing allies to avoid their obligations.“

    Trump was exactly right with regards to NATO. It is an anachronism. The equivalent of maintaining the horse cavalry in the U.S. Army on the eve of World War II. But there is a lot of money and high paying jobs for senior officers to be had. Cannot let that sugar tit dry up.

    The men at around the table also tried to thwart Trump on Iran:

    He wanted out of the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama had struck in 2015, which called for Iran to reduce its uranium stockpile and cut its nuclear program.


    It’s the worst deal in history!” Trump declared.


    “Well, actually . . .,” Tillerson interjected.


    “I don’t want to hear it,” Trump said, cutting off the secretary of state before he could explain some of the benefits of the agreement.

    “They’re cheating. They’re building. We’re getting out of it. I keep telling you, I keep giving you time, and you keep delaying me. I want out of it.”


    Here again Trump never hid his intent with respect to Obama’s Iran deal. So why the surprise on the part of Mattis and Tillerson?

    Next up, Afghanistan:

    Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was now America’s longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn’t won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a “loser war.”

    That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief’s commands, and here he was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.



    “You’re all losers,” Trump said. “You don’t know how to win anymore.”


    You may not like the tone, but Trump’s position was not new nor should it have been unexpected. To his credit he called out the Generals to their face. And he was factually correct. We defeated the Japanese and German armies in four years. Here we are entering our 19th year of a meaningless war in Afghanistan and all we have to show are losses of hundreds of millions of dollars and the deaths and maiming of thousands of U.S. military personnel. Damn straight Mr. President. We’ve been pouring U.S. taxpayer dollars down an open sewer that masquerades as a country. For what purpose?

    Then we get this “pity party”:

    They stunned nearly everyone in the room, and some vowed that they would never repeat them. Indeed, they have not been reported until now.


    “I wouldn’t go to war with you people,” Trump told the assembled brass.
Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”


    For a president known for verbiage he euphemistically called “locker room talk,” this was the gravest insult he could have delivered to these people, in this sacred space. The flag officers in the room were shocked. Some staff began looking down at their papers, rearranging folders, almost wishing themselves out of the room. A few considered walking out. They tried not to reveal their revulsion on their faces, but questions raced through their minds.

    “How does the commander in chief say that?” one thought. “What would our worst adversaries think if they knew he said this?”


    Grab the damn fainting couch. Trump told the assembled military leaders who had presided over a military stalemate in Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS as “losers.” Not a one of them had the balls to stand up, tell him to his face he was wrong and offer their resignation. Nope.

    They preferred to endure such abuse in order to keep their jobs. Pathetic.

    This excerpt in the Washington Post tells the reader more about the corruption of the Deep State and their mindset than it does about Trump’s so-called mental state. Trump acted no differently in front of these senior officers and diplomats than he did on the campaign trail.

    He was honest. That is something the liars in Washington cannot stomach.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 22:55

    Tags

  • In "Spectacular" Jail Break, 75 Prisoners Including 6 Contract Killers Flee Paraguay Jail Through Tunnel
    In “Spectacular” Jail Break, 75 Prisoners Including 6 Contract Killers Flee Paraguay Jail Through Tunnel

    Someone has been watching too many reruns of The Shawshenk Redemption.

    In a dramatic prison escape that would make both Andy Dufresne and El Chapo proud, no less than 75 prisoners, all members of a violent Brazilian gang – one of South America’s most notorious – which also included six contract killers, launched what Bloomberg called a “spectacular jail break” in Paraguay.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Pedro Juan Caballero city jail entrance on Jan. 19 after dozens of inmates escaped; Photo: AP.

    According to the newspaper ABC, the prisoners pulled a page out of one of Stephen King’s most popular stories, and fled through a large tunnel.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Or maybe they didn’t, because as the country’s Interior Minister Euclides Acevedo told the TV station Telefuturo, the tunnel, which started in a cell and ended outside the prison walls, may have been a decoy to mask the fact that most of the escapees simply walked out of the main door. And as an indication of the sheer chaos and corruption in Latin America’s penal system, investigators believe some of the former inmates may even have left the prison in previous days.

    The escaped prisoners were members of the drug gang First Command of the Capital, known as PCC, Justice Minister Cecilia Perez told Telefuturo; the gang, sporting more than 10,000 members, is one of Brazil’s largest criminal organizations. The PCC dominates the drug trade and prisons in Sao Paulo and in recent years has expanded its operations into other countries including Paraguay; in 2012, the group unleashed a wave of violence that included more than 200 murders in protest of the election of Fernando Haddad as Sao Paulo’s mayor.

    After the escape, no less than five prison guards were arrested and the head of the prison – who was conveniently on holiday at the time – as been fired, news channel NPY reported.

    That said, if Andy Dufresne’s historic jailbreak was indeed the inspiration for the escape, then the Paraguay version appears to have been the work of rank amateurs: as Bloomberg notes, the tunnel was the work of days if not weeks, as the amount of soil shifted could not have passed unnoticed and was easily visible from the prison corridor, Perez explained as television images showed dozens of bags of soil piled up in a cell.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Clothes are seen in a tunnel entrance where inmates escaped from Pedro Juan Caballero city jail. Source: AP

    Yet even if this particular escape was more luck than skill, we are confident the same group will have ample opportunity to show off its capabilities in the near future. According to InSight Crime, which investigates organized crime in Latin America, the PCC has also been blamed for several large heists including the biggest armed robbery in Paraguay’s history, in which the headquarters of security company Prosegur in Ciudad del Este was attacked by a gunmen who broke in using long tunnels and walked away with $40 million in an assault that was carried out with a wide array of weapons, including AK 47s, C4 explosives, infrared weapons, snipers and even anti-aircraft guns and a helicopter. We described that particular robbery in April 2017 in “In “Spectacular Heist” Dozens Of Heavily-Armed Robbers Steal $40 Million From Paraguay Vault.”

    In 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that the PCC was trying to recruit members of Colombia’s FARC rebel group for their expertise in heavy weaponry.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 22:30

  • Puerto Ricans Find Warehouse Full of Emergency Supplies From Hurricane Maria
    Puerto Ricans Find Warehouse Full of Emergency Supplies From Hurricane Maria

    Submitted by The Organic Prepper

    Back in 2017, when the island territory was devastated by Hurricane Maria, loads of emergency supplies were sent to help residents who lost power, many for as long as a year after. But…those supplies were never distributed. Instead, water, food, and cots were stashed away in a warehouse ever since. Watch the video below, which has rightly gone viral.

    Residents in Ponce, a city in the southern part of Puerto Rico, discovered the stash of supplies and blogger Lorenzo Delgado posted the video footage above. People broke into the building after Puerto Rico was hit by a powerful earthquake last week.

    With anger spreading in the U.S. territory after video of the event in Ponce appeared on Facebook, Gov. Wanda Vázquez quickly fired the director of the island’s emergency management agency.

    The governor said she had ordered an investigation after learning the emergency supplies had been piled in the warehouse since Hurricane Maria battered Puerto Rico in September 2017.

    Vázquez said inaction by the fired official, Carlos Acevedo, was unacceptable.

    “There are thousands of people who have made sacrifices to help those in the south, and it is unforgivable that resources were kept in the warehouse,” the governor said…

    …The mayor of Ponce, María Meléndez, said he had not known about the warehouse and its contents.

    “This is outrageous,” she said. “Everyone knows what us mayors went through after Hurricane Maria to try and get help to our cities and how we’ve worked these weeks to provide basic supplies to people affected by earthquakes. Those involved owe us an explanation.” (source)

    The White House was criticized for a lackluster response.

    You may recall that in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, President Trump was harshly criticized for not sending sufficient aid to the hard-hit island. But it appears that much of the aid that was dispensed was never given to the people who needed it the most. It’s interesting to note that President Trump is currently under fire for restrictions placed on billions of dollars of aid that were just approved to help Puerto Ricans recover from a recent earthquake, citing corruption in the Puerto Rican government.

    Even as pressure has mounted for him to release emergency assistance, the president has maintained his assertions that the money will not be well spent. On Wednesday, the White House budget office made clear how those assertions had shaped relief.

    To gain access to $8.2 billion in recovery money and $8.3 billion in disaster prevention funds, Puerto Rico will have to submit budget plans to its federally mandated fiscal control board, which will track where the money goes. It will also have to bolster its property registration database…

    …the fiscal control board is viewed in Puerto Rico as unaccountable to the people. And Puerto Rican officials are not inclined to tell workers they will be paid less than the minimum wage. With regard to the property and deed registrations, Puerto Ricans have long used informal ownership records.

    The restriction relating to the electrical grid may just be a practical one: Congress has already appropriated a separate tranche of money specifically for the electrical grid, though it has yet to be allocated. (source)

    Given the fact that all this aid was hidden in a warehouse while people struggled for two years, it’s difficult to dispute that the new funds could likewise be misused.

    Commenting on the news, Donald Trump, Jr., “I look forward to the Wall to wall coverage of this now that we found out @realDonaldTrump was right all along.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    He probably shouldn’t hold his breath.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 22:05

  • India's Half-Finished "Ghost Towns" Leave Middle Class In Crisis
    India’s Half-Finished “Ghost Towns” Leave Middle Class In Crisis

    If you thought the American housing market was a mess during the immediate aftermath of the collapse, wait until you read about what’s going in India.

    Rapid economic growth and the government’s gradual economic liberalization have caused the ranks to India’s middle class to boom. The emerging Hindu middle class is already reshaping Indian society: Prime Minister Narendra Modi owes his electoral victories to this group, and his reform agenda was designed with the goal of sheparding even more of the country’s 1.4 billion citizens into the higher income bracket.

    Modi’s first term included several important reforms, including simplifying India’s byzantine tax system and instituting a simplified system for taxing goods and services (though some argue that it must still be simplified further. He’s also helped modernize the country’s bankruptcy laws.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But as the country’s growing wealth has sparked a flight from India’s crowded urban slums to its more spacious suburbs, they’re struggling with a shortage of homes, a shortage that has been made even more intense thanks to roughly half a million apartments that have been sitting unfinished for years.

    Across the country, outside major cities like New Delhi and Mumbai, hundreds of developments have been stranded by developers, many of which have declared bankruptcy, or simply run out of money to finish the projects, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    India’s banks, already saddled with bad loans, are refusing to lend any more money to the developers. As a result, millions of Indians who put up their life savings as a down payment on a new, yet-to-be-built apartment have essentially been left bereft, with no money and nowhere to live.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Most are now making ends meet by cutting out any and all luxuries, and relying on friends and family, as they wait to see if the apartments they paid for will ever be finished.

    Delhi has the largest number of apartments delayed by more than three years, but the problem is nearly universal across India’s cities and emerging suburbs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here’s a brief recounting of how India got to this point: market liberalizations that began in the early 2000s prompted a crush of developers and consumers all borrowing money either to build homes or to buy them.

    But unfortunately, India’s stodgy system of local regulations hadn’t been liberalized enough, and many developers quickly racked up unanticipated delays thanks to difficulty in securing government clearances. Others had trouble hiring enough skilled workers to build the apartment complexes.

    As a result, the number of buildings that are taking five or even ten years to build has skyrocketed.

    One woman who spoke with WSJ poured her savings into a new apartment ten years ago. But the development was halted a few years after construction started, and she has no recourse for retrieving her savings.

    Jonaki Ray took a loan to buy an apartment in 2009 that has tied up her life savings for more than a decade. To pay for her mortgage, and an apartment she has rented in the meantime, she stopped splurging on things like vacations abroad and a new car.

    Ms. Ray has finally been given the keys to the unit, but still has no plans to move in. She has to finish the interiors on her own, and she is worried about safety as no one else on her floor has moved in.

    “There is this thing looming over me and I don’t know what is going to happen,” she said. “It’s always there at the back of my head.”

    These half-built “Ghost towns” now dot the outskirts of India’s cities, creating an outrageous blight on the landscape.

    Wish Town, a development in the New Delhi suburb of Noida, encapsulates the plight of middle-class Indians who sank their life savings into

    The construction workers are long gone, the site’s cement factory and cranes have stopped working. Signs mark aborted projects: a “Sports Field” is still a cauliflower patch, the “Social Club” a shell of a building.

    Construction stopped in 2016 when the developer couldn’t pay its debt. Only about half of the 40,000 apartments that were to house close to 200,000 people have been finished and handed over to their buyers. Those who have moved in complain that the golf club, gyms, pools, retail spaces and restaurants advertised by its developer, Jaypee Group have largely yet to be built.

    Modi regularly riffs on India’s housing crisis and the plight of those who have lost their savings. But it’s unclear what, if anything, his government plans to do about it.

    One data provider used by WSJ put the total value of all the delayed developments at $50 billion, 10x the number from five years ago. 

    The question now is: Will Modi commit the enormous resources necessary for a bailout? Or risk alienating the base that just handed him a second term in office?

    Whatever happens, the crisis is just one of the myriad reasons why international investors are beginning to lose faith in Modi’s India.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 21:40

  • Peter Schiff: "I Just Lost All The Bitcoin I Have Ever Owned"
    Peter Schiff: “I Just Lost All The Bitcoin I Have Ever Owned”

    Authored by Alex Cohen via CoinTelegraph.com,

    On Jan. 19, famous crypto skeptic and gold bug Peter Schiff claimed on Twitter that he has lost access to his Bitcoin wallet and that his password is no longer valid.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    Schiff added that his BTC is now intrinsically worthless and has no market value. He also added that:

    “I knew owning Bitcoin was a bad idea, I just never realized it was this bad!”

    Getting to the bottom of the issue

    After Schiff tweeted about his loss, the crypto community was quick to jump to the rescue. For example, co-founder and partner at Morgan Creek Digital Anthony Pompliano responding by asking if he forgot his password, to which Schiff has responded that, “My wallet forgot my password.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Pompliano then asked Schiff to email him directly:

    “The software just executes the commands that humans give it. It can’t ‘forget’ anything. Email me and I’ll try to help you recover the lost Bitcoin.”

    However it looks like the BTC may indeed be gone for good, as Schiff responded:

    “Eric Voorhees set up the wallet for me and even he thinks there is nothing I can do. But you’re welcome to try if you have any ideas.”

    BTC price skepticism

    Schiff is known for being an outspoken critic of cryptocurrencies. Just before the New Year, he claimed that unlike every other asset class, BTC was not rising toward the end of the calendar year.

    In late November, Schiff claimed in a Twitter debate that the price of BTC would drop to $1,000 to “complete the pattern.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 21:15

  • "Reality Is Officially Here": Nobody Buying Homes In Greenwich Is Paying Top Dollar Anymore
    “Reality Is Officially Here”: Nobody Buying Homes In Greenwich Is Paying Top Dollar Anymore

    Today in optimistic real estate news…

    …almost all housing in Greenwich is now selling for discounts to the sticker price. 90% of single family deals that closed in the fourth quarter were for less than what the seller was asking, according to Bloomberg. This marks the biggest percentage of deals dating back to mid 2017.

    The average discount to the asking price was 9.6%, according to appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate.

    But the best news is that the price cuts didn’t do much to improve sales, which fell by 12% from a year earlier to 117. However, they did contribute to a decline in Greenwich’s listings – the biggest decline since Q1 2017 – as owners refused to discount their properties. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jonathan Miller, president of Miller Samuel said: “Reality is officially here. We’re getting to a point where they have to decide: Do they want to ever sell, or do they want to withdraw?”

    Homeowners in the area are adjusting to the climate where even wealthy buyers have become sensitive to price. Wall Street bonuses have been on the decline and shoppers are showing less interest in oversized estates far from transit and retail. New tax laws that limit deductions have also acted as a headwind for the area.

    Dealmaking hasn’t increased in any of the last five quarters, but low mortgage rates still have buyers on the prowl for value. Contracts at the end of the year pricked up slightly, which could suggest a stronger Q1 on its way. As of Dec. 31, there were 74 transactions pending, which is up 54% from the year prior. 

    David Haffenreffer, manager of the Greenwich office of Houlihan Lawrence: “At the right price there’s always an audience.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “People are recognizing there are deals to be had,” he continued.

    One section of town, north of the Merritt Parkway, saw deals jump 54%. The area is replete with sprawling estates set back from “winding two lane roads”. It was the largest increase for any neighborhood, but was the area where the buyers also got the largest discounts. 

    The neighborhood was also home to the biggest sale of the quarter, after the owners of an estate took a 45% haircut from a price they paid in 2010. The estate sold once belonged to Mel Gibson and sold last month for $13.25 million after being on the market for seven years. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 20:55

  • Hedge Fund CIO: Once All Investing Becomes Passive, Then The Information Contained In Market Prices Will Be Meaningless
    Hedge Fund CIO: Once All Investing Becomes Passive, Then The Information Contained In Market Prices Will Be Meaningless

    Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    Looking

    “I look at historical relationships that appear to no longer operate as before,” said the investor. “I look at measures of valuation that are stretched to levels rarely seen,” he continued.

    “I look at corporate share buybacks as the only meaningful inflow. I look at outflows from retail investors and the flags that this raises.”

    “Then I look at the fact that global interest rates have never been negative like this. I look at the working population and it has never before aged and shrunk like this.”

    “And I look at the world and just don’t know how anyone can be certain of anything.”

    * * *

    Anecdote:

    “Start with what we know for sure,” said Big Foot, creeping quietly through global markets, trackers desperate to front-run his every step.

    “If 100% of all investing is passive, then the information contained in market prices is meaningless,” continued the CEO of one of the industry’s largest investment firms.  In 2009, assets in actively-managed mutual funds were 3x those of index-based funds/ETFs. In August 2019, US index-based fund/ETF assets surpassed actively managed assets. That trend continues.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With each incremental dollar that moves from active to passive management, roughly five more cents flow into equities (active managers hold 5% cash buffers while passive funds generally do not).

    “We also know that if 100% of equity is taken private, then public markets would cease to exist.” The average institutional portfolio holds a 25% allocation in alternative investments. Of that allocation, private equity investments have surged to 25% of the assets, up from 18% in 2018. Private equity funds have $1.5trln in dry powder that will fail to pay fees unless their managers buy equity, which continues to appreciate.

    US equity market capitalization is $35tlrn, a record 1.55x America’s $22.3trln annual GDP. “But what we do not know for sure is whether there comes a point well before 100% of all investing is done passively, or before all public equity is taken private, that the market price becomes meaningless,” said Big Foot.

    You see, in a world where all investing is passive, how much would an incremental $1bln inflow move market prices up? How about a $1bln outflow? The price moves would become utterly extraordinary in such a world. And in a world where all public equity is taken private, PE managers would surely mark their holdings steadily higher, to ever more extreme multiples.

    “Nor do we know whether we have already reached that point.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 20:33

  • One Dead As Speeding Tesla "Crashes And Bursts Into Flames" In California Intersection Saturday Night
    One Dead As Speeding Tesla “Crashes And Bursts Into Flames” In California Intersection Saturday Night

    No sooner do we report that the NHTSA is considering a petition to investigate 500,000 Teslas for unintended acceleration, than another Tesla driver winds up dead.

    Police are in the middle of investigating what is being called a “single vehicle crash” involving a Tesla that “crashed and burst into flames” in Pleasanton, California.

    The driver of the vehicle was killed, according to ABC 7. His identity has not yet been released.

    The crash was reported on Saturday night at about 6pm local time at the intersection of West Las Positas Boulevard and Hacienda Drive.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Tesla was going southbound and lost control near the intersection. It then crashed into a sign outside of an apartment complex before catching on fire. 

    The intersection was closed for several hours on Saturday night as a result of the crash. 

    “The car was going so fast, it actually took out a street signal,” the on-the-scene reporter says in her coverage. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Your move, NHTSA.  

    We will update this story as more information becomes available. 

    You can watch the news coverage of the event from the ABC feed here:


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 20:10

  • California's Anti-Self-Employment Law Is Already Crushing Freelancers
    California’s Anti-Self-Employment Law Is Already Crushing Freelancers

    Authored by Andrew Moran via LibertyNation.com,

    In 1971, Isaac Asimov wrote an extraordinary novel, The Gods Themselves, about a machine that generates unlimited energy for free, defying the fundamental economic principle known as scarcity. It is later learned that the Electron Pump is originating from a hole in space that connects parallel universes. Doomsday is nigh as it is discovered that galaxies will soon be destroyed and that the sun will metastasize into a supernova. The crux of the story is comparable to what is transpiring in California.

    State lawmakers possess an infinite source of good intentions, using the eternal supply to pave roads to hell. Wielding the power of this limitless benevolence and munificence, politicians are regulating the lives of citizens while eviscerating their existence in the process. If this is goodwill, then we can only imagine what the state is capable of when it desires to ruin you or your business.

    The Gig Is Up

    In September, California’s Democratic governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB-5, which requires most companies to reclassify freelancers and contingent workers as full-time employees. Doing this means such individuals would be eligible for a guaranteed $12–$13 state minimum wage, benefits, and protections under California’s immense code of employment laws. It went into effect on January 1.

    “As one of the strongest economies in the world, California is now setting the global standard for worker protections for other states and countries to follow,” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D), the author of the bill, in a statement.

    AB-5 was lauded by organized labor, but it turns out that laborers are not enthusiastic about it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The law impacts about two-thirds of the state’s two million independent contractors; it does exempt many white-collar professionals, including architects, attorneys, doctors, and realtors. But childcare specialists, nurses, writers, and janitors are not afforded the same luxury. Truck drivers received a last-minute exemption after weeks of contentious battles, but they reportedly fled the state before the country bellowed “Auld Lang Syne.” As for the truckers who stayed behind, the California Trucking Association claims it is receiving calls from individuals who are leaving the state.

    Freelance writers may be the next ones to wave goodbye to California. Moving forward, freelancers are limited to thirty-five submissions annually per client. As any writer will attest, it can be easy to reach this quota when you are submitting content to media firms, leaving you on a never-ending hunt for more companies that will accept your prose on the existential crisis in the age of deconstruction.

    Decline in Clients and Projects

    Just weeks after AB-5 became law, Vox Media announced that hundreds of freelance writers, primarily sports contributors for its SBNation.com website, would be given the pink slip. The irony behind this corporate decision is that Vox endorsed the bill and celebrated its passing. Now Vox is replacing them with twenty new full- and part-time staff members.

    When Gonzalez was confronted with this on Twitter, she tweeted:

    These were never good jobs. No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers. We will continue to work on this next year.

    She further dismissed complaints, urging everyone to “educate” themselves on the benefits of AB-5.

    One Twitter user summarized the thoughts of the many affected by this law: “Wow, you really suck at this.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CNBC spoke with Jeremiah LaBrash, who earns half of his annual income from freelancing. Based in Los Angeles, the freelance cartoonist noticed the decline in potential clients and projects. When LaBrash submitted proposals to media companies, these employers turned him down when they learned he is from California. He told the business news network:

    I’ve had them hire me and then come back and say they’re no longer interested. All of a sudden, someone I’ve never talked to says, “We’ve decided not to move forward.” I’ve never had that happen before this year.

    My savings are stagnant. I really can’t look into buying a house. The housing market here is hard already.

    Once again, the paternalistic central planners strive to make the decisions for adults. They failed to comprehend that a lot of freelancers enjoy being independent professionals, setting their own hours, and opting for freedom rather than a nine-to-five structure. The bill is marketed as a safety net, but the question is: what good is a safety net if you do not have any work?

    Leave California or Bust!

    When first reporting on the bill, Kelli Ballard at Liberty Nation wrote that the historic motto had been “California or bust!.” After years of big government encroachment, Ballard posits that it is now “Leave California or bust!.” It may not be that simple. The biggest concern is that other blue states will eventually adopt similar legislation to combat the $1 trillion national gig economy, proving that there is no escaping bad economics.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 19:50

    Tags

  • McConnell "Kill Switch" Rule Will Shut Down Impeachment If Dems Get Wild
    McConnell “Kill Switch” Rule Will Shut Down Impeachment If Dems Get Wild

    Unfortunately for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, too many moderate Republicans have sided with Democrats in insisting that the impeachment trial proceed. If the shoe was on the other foot, and McConnell was able to win over more conservative and moderate Democrats, President Trump’s legal team would be able to easily win a vote to dismiss at the outset of the trial, effectively ending it before it could really begin.

    But prtisan rancor aimed at the president and his allies in Congress remains at an all-time high. Even as Democrats bash the president for allegedly putting politics above doing what’s right for the country, they are proceeding with the impeachment charade, despite being doomed from the start.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After a frenetic holiday weekend of dealmaking, McConnell is apparently nearly finished drafting the rules of engagement for the impeachment trial.

    According to a leak that was picked up by Axios and Brietbart, among others, McConnell is still planning to include a “kill switch” in the impeachment trial rules that would allow the president’s legal team to call for a dismissal if Democrats try to violate the rules or engage in any “shenanigans.”

    The provision will allow Trump’s team to quickly push for a summary judgment or dismissal at any time. It comes after some Senators tried – and failed – to change the Senate rules to dismiss the charges because of Pelosi’s decision to delay transferring the articles of impeachment.

    According to Breitbart, if McConnell succeeds in including the kill switch, he will have outmaneuvered Democrats and proved once again that he’s a better leader than Pelosi. Even though a few moderates tentatively sided with the Democrats and insisted there should be a trial, Republicans still have the upper hand – because the minute the Dems start to push the envelope, the moderate Republicans will return to vote with McConnell to dismiss.

    The Republican leadership and President Trump himself have assented – and at times even welcomed – a trial. At this point, the American people have already seen the transcript of Trump’s July call with his Ukrainian counterpart, they’ve been told that the aid was eventually released, and even heard it from Zelensky himself that there was no quid pro quo involving opening an investigation into the Bidens.

    And now, if the Dems try to do something extreme like include even more alleged “bombshells” from Lev Parnas or anyone else outside the framework for the trial, McConnell will be able to shut them down. 

    “If Schiff or the Democrats try anything untoward like they did in the House, the president and the Senate have the option to shut the whole thing down and blow it all up on them. That means Republicans hold the upper hand, and should things get crazy—while there are not currently enough votes to dismiss the trial or outright off the bat acquit Trump—after Democrat partisan gamesmanship there likely would be enough votes to dismiss the whole thing.”

    Meanwhile, as the two sides battle over whether witnesses will be called, at least one of the lawyers who will be pleading Trump’s case to the Senate – Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz – told the Hill that he plans to argue that the articles of impeachment are invalid because they don’t include truly impeachable offenses, which would justify a Senate vote to end the matter.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    But will Democrats see it that way? We’re not so sure.

    So far, at least, the Dems and their supporters in the press have tried to imbue the proceedings with a dramatic flair. The media lapped it up when Cheryl Johnson, a black woman and the clerk of the House, delivered the articles of impeachment against President Trump on Martin Luther King Jr.’s real birthday.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Most of these reports neglected to point out that the entire impeachment process will mostly be managed by Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, two old white men.

    At least if McConnell has his way, the Dems will mostly be limited to transparent and ham-fisted melodrama. There’s plenty of evidence that the public’s perception of the president has been very little affected by the whole circus. If anything, the Dems excoriations of the president and his team have soured the public against them.

    Even though Democratic strategists bet the farm that impeachment would help them defeat Trump in 2020.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 19:30

    Tags

  • JPMorgan: Maybe We Were Wrong About The Main Reason To Be Bullish In 2020
    JPMorgan: Maybe We Were Wrong About The Main Reason To Be Bullish In 2020

    Readers will recall for much of 2019 we highlighted what we said was the market’s biggest paradox: one where the higher the market rose, the more money investors would pull out of equities, and allocate to bonds.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It culminated last June when , even as the S&P hit new all time highs, outflows over the last 6 months in dollar terms surpassed the previous record observed over any prior 6-month period.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Since then the market moved relentlessly higher hitting new record highs, buoyed in great part by the Fed’s announcement of repo liquidity injections at first, and subsequently by the return of POMO, as a result of the NY Fed’s monthly monetization of $60BN in T-Bills. And yet the paradox remained: investors continued to pull money out of equities and allocated it to bond and money market funds.

    This lack of retail euphoria promptly was used by the major banks, most notably JPMorgan, as one of the catalysts behind the bank’s bullish outlook for 2020, with the bank arguing back in November that 2020 is likely to be the year of Great Rotation II, in a repeat of 2013 the year of Great Rotation I, which saw a sharp acceleration in equity fund buying and sharp deceleration in bond fund buying by retail investors globally.

    There is just one problem: despite the market’s continued meltup, this has so far failed to materialize, and as JPM derivatives strategist Nick Panagirtzoglou writes in his latest Flows and Liquidity report, “is the flow picture over the past few weeks consistent with the Great Rotation II thesis? The answer is not yet” because whether one looks at YTD fund flows or the flows over the past month or two, the picture is of continued strong flows into bond funds and of only modestly positive flows into equity funds.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Why are the early January fund flows number important? Because as the JPM strategist explains, “January flows have added importance especially in years where a big flow shift is expected to take place. This is because January is typically a month when retail investors make their asset allocations for the whole year. Indeed, empirically there is a significant positive relationship between the full year equity fund vs. the January flow…. And during the previous Great Rotation year of 2013 when we had a big positive equity fund flow shift of the one we anticipate for this year, January saw a high share of almost 20% of the yearly equity fund inflow, i.e. much higher than its proportional 1/12 share.”

    This, as Panigirtzoglou notes, “implies that the final fund flow numbers of weekly and monthly reporting funds for the month of January, which we are going to get in the second half of February, will be important in gauging whether the Great Rotation thesis is tracking or not for this year.”

    Alas, as shown in the chart above, the trend so far is hardly a ringing endorsement of a second Great Rotation out of bonds and into stocks despite the market making new all time highs on a daily basis.

    This in turn has prompted JPM to ask, just two months after positing its “Great Rotation II” thesis, that it may well be wrong about a great fund reallocation out of bonds and into stocks, and if that is the case what then, or as Panigirtzoglou humbly puts it, “what could make the Great Rotation thesis failing to materialize this year?”

    To answer this question the derivatives expert says he needs to think about the factors for and against the Great Rotation thesis. In terms of the supporting factors, he had mentioned three main factors in our previous publication of November 22nd. This is what JPM said then:

    • 1) Historical patterns based on previous year’s equity/bond performance and on previous year’s extremity in equity and bond fund flows, pointed to a big change in fund flows this year – at least according to JPM if not this website which has argued for years that the biggest buyer of stocks is not retail or institutional investors but corporate buybacks –  with more than reversal of last year’s equity fund selling and collapse in last year’s record high bond fund buying. In particular, JPM had argued that in terms of equity fund flows 2018 looked more like 2011 or 2015, as they were all equity correction years. As a result, 2019 looked more like 2012 or 2016, and 2020 is likely to look more like 2013 or 2017. In other words, the cautious stance of retail investors in 2019 was likely in response to 2018’s equity market correction and given 2019 was a strong year for equities driven by bullish institutional investors, then retail investors should turn big buyers of equity funds in 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    • 2) An improving macro picture. Further signs of an improvement in the global industry cycle into 2020 should also encourage a rotation from bond funds to equity funds. The upward trajectory in orders and inventories since the flash PMIs of October 24th has been so far underpinning this improving macro picture. Next week’s flash PMIs will be important in gauging whether this improvement trend continues.
       
    • 3) The third supporting factor JPM had mentioned is the global yield backdrop across asset classes. Following last year’s rate cuts by central banks, cash and bonds yield significantly less than before and significantly less than equities. So in the absence of negative surprises it would be difficult for retail investors or other asset allocators to ignore the yield advantage of equities and not accept ever higher equity weightings.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What about the factors against Great Rotation (which as regular readers may recall, we said would not happen around the time JPM made its “contrarian” call, for the simple reason that there is little impetus to keep selling bonds).

    Here, JPM says that “the main risk or impediment” to its Great Rotation thesis stemmed from already elevated retail investor equity positions (as a reminder, earlier today we noted that virtually every investor class is now all-in stocks) that need to rise beyond previous equity cycle peaks for the Great Rotation thesis to play out this year. This impediment, JPM adds, “looks even bigger at the moment following the equity rally over the past two months.”

    To illustrate this “challenge” to getting his key thesis for 202 right, Panigirtzoglou updates his position proxies for retail investors to incorporate more recent price and flow information including the last week’s release of quarterly reported fund flows for Q3 2019. This is how he explains the key indicator he is watching:

    The retail investor position proxy is the share of equities in US domiciled or worldwide fund universe of equity, bond, hybrid and money market funds. The equity share in the fund universe is proxied by the AUM of equity funds plus the equity holdings of hybrid funds divided by the sum of the AUM of equity, bond, hybrid and money market funds. This share could
    be considered as a proxy of how overweight equities retail investors are.

    This proxy is shown in Figure 4 for funds domiciled in the US since 1996 and funds domiciled worldwide since 2005. This equity fund share, extrapolated to January 16th by the dots, looks even more elevated after the equity rally of the past few months and currently stands at record high levels for funds domiciled worldwide and very close to record high levels for funds domiciled in the US. Said otherwise, this confirms what we said earlier, namely that retail investors are indeed “all in” US stocks to a never before seen degree.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Another key metric to assess retail investors’ positioning is based on the NYSE Net Debit balance as a proxy for US individual investor leverage. In contrast to hedge funds who can get leverage more easily or cheaply via options and futures (and of course, repos, as we discussed extensively), individuals rely more on Federal Reserve Regulation T. This regulation, which governs customer cash accounts and the amount of credit that brokerage firms and dealers may extend to customers for the purchase of securities, stipulates that one can borrow up to 50% of the purchase price of securities that can be purchased on margin. This is known as the “initial margin”. NYSE rules also require equity in an account to be at least 25% of the securities market value, i.e., the “maintenance margin.”

    Figure 6 shows this NYSE Net Debit balance calculated as the difference between margin debit balance minus the sum of total credit balances (cash account credit +margin account credit). This leverage proxy has been rising steeply over 2016-2017, and hit a record high of 1.5% in May 2018. Curiously, despite what Figure 4 above shows, this metric has declined significantly since then and the latest reading for November 2019 stands close to those seen previously at the end of 2016.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    In other words, and contradicting the prior observations, the previous extremity in US individual investor leverage seen in Q2 2018 has been largely unwound. But, as the JPM strategist notes, “what is more striking in Figure 6 is that this metric declined last year despite strong equity market performance. This again shows how unwilling US retail investors were last year to leverage their equity bets.” This unwillingness likely indicates that leveraged US retail investors feel that their equity exposures and leverage are already elevated and are thus reluctant to add even with the equity market at historical highs. Incidentally, and this is not JPM but ZH talking, not adding when stocks are at all time highs is precisely what investors should be doing – instead of selling low and buying high as the dumb money has historically done, in this case we see the opposite, or what some may call, perfectly logical, reasonable behavior. It’s also why JPM is stumped…

    In any case, back to the JPMorgan argument, which sees in this “unusual deleveraging” in NYSE margin accounts in a strong equity year, coupled with the “unusual selling” of equity funds and the record high buying of almost $1tr of bond funds last year, the possibility that retail investors are more motivated by rebalancing rather than responding to long term momentum. Once again, this is merely a way for JPM to feign shock that instead of unleashing animal spirits, a market all time highs is now nothing more than a logical signal for most investors to sell.

    Well, if this is indeed the case, then Panigirtzoglou concludes that retail investors would be unwilling to accept even higher equity weighting from here “and our Great Rotation thesis would fail to materialize.”

    Oops… because as the title summarizes, this is just a way for one of JPM’s most respected strategists to admit that just maybe he was wrong about the main argument for him to turn bullish on stocks in 2020.

    * * *

    So what would the implications be if the Great Rotation fails to materialize this year, according to JPM? As a reminder, the largest US bank had argued at the end of last year that retail flows would be crucial in determining the 2020 demand/supply balance for both equities and bonds. So if the Great Rotation fails to materialize this year, the implications would be important for both equities and bonds. For equities the implication would be that the equity market would remain at the mercy of institutional investors, which, as noted earlier are already all in, and have little room to push the equity market higher from here and instead leave it vulnerable to negative surprises.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In other words, in the absence of significant retail inflows, the equity market would be range bound rather than trending up. That, of course, ignores the elephant in the room: the Fed’s injections of roughly $100BN in liquidity between repos and QE4 each month. But since JPM also happens to be the biggest recipient of such Fed intervention, it is understandable why the bank would rather not discuss what the real reason for the stock surge in late 2019 and early 2020 has been.

    As for bonds, the implication would be that the bond market would remain supported, producing at least coupon-like returns “and yield curves would fail to steepen by as much as we envisaged for this year.”

    In all, as Panigirtzoglou summarizes, while he continues to believe that the Great Rotation still “has a decent chance of happening this year”, he admits that “the fund flow picture is not yet consistent with this thesis”… and is 100%  consistent with our own thesis set forth in late November 2019, according to which JPM is dead wrong and that retail investors are now fully inert elements in a market dominated by the Fed and buybacks, and that what they do has absolutely no bearing – and has zero predictive insight – on the market.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 19:20

  • The Ugly Truth About How Much Americans Have Been Spied On By The Gov't Since 2001
    The Ugly Truth About How Much Americans Have Been Spied On By The Gov’t Since 2001

    Authored by B.N.Frank via ActivistPost.com,

    We’ve all heard about at least some of this before.  Thanks to Full Measure for producing this new segment reminding us about why this should tick us off. Independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson also provides an update about her own computer intrusion by the U.S. government in this video.

    We begin with an examination of one of the worst abuses of government power that could happen in our society – Illegal spying on U.S. citizens.

    Amid findings about egregious violations by our intelligence community, there’s a criminal investigation. And the court that approves surveillance on U.S. citizens has instructed the FBI to implement new safeguards as of this week. As our intelligence agencies face what may be their biggest scrutiny in decades, we examine how we got here.

    Our examination of government surveillance controversies begins in 2001. Under FBI Director Robert Mueller, new rules were imposed to address FBI abuses.

    FBI Agents had repeatedly gotten caught submitting false information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to justify wiretapping or spying on U.S. citizens.

    Unfortunately, increasing surveillance on non-consenting Americans by a variety of entities seems to be the new norm thanks to new and unsafe technology being forcibly installed throughout our communities (see 1234567) and even on our homes


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 18:50

    Tags

  • Nadler Demands "All Witnesses Must Be Heard, Except Hunter Biden", Chuck Todd Defends Parnas' "Evidence"
    Nadler Demands “All Witnesses Must Be Heard, Except Hunter Biden”, Chuck Todd Defends Parnas’ “Evidence”

    NBC’s Chuck Todd reconfirmed his role in the ‘resistance’ this weekend as he clashed with Senator David Perdue (R- G.A.) on Sunday over the upcoming impeachment trial and whether Lev Parnas should testify.

    Perdue told Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Parnas, a colleague of President Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, shouldn’t testify because his testimony would be considered “second-hand information.”

    “This is a distraction,” Perdue said.

    “This a person that’s been indicted. Right now, he’s out on bail. He’s been meeting with the House Intel Committee. If the House felt like this information was pertinent, I would think they would have included him.”

    Todd fired back and said:

    “How is it second hand? He was in Ukraine. He was doing the bidding,” adding that Parnas has key “material evidence that might help connect some dots.”

    Perdue responded by saying Parnas is trying “to get his sentence reduced.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Perdue defended Trump’s actions in Ukraine by indicating the administration was concerned about corruption involving an American citizen. He also rejected a suggestion by Todd that Trump was close to Parnas.

    Parnas made the rounds on the mainstream media last week, stopping by none other than the Rachel Maddow Show Wednesday night to claim that he was sent to Ukraine at the order of Rudy Guiliani and Trump to uncover dirt on Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

    The schizophrenia is astonishing.

    • In October of 2019, European businessman, Lev Parnas, who claimed to have “explosive information about corruption involving Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden”, was arrested at Dulles airport on “campaign finance violations.”

    • And, now, just three months later, Parnas is dropping impeachment bombshells on Trump.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The interview came the same day the impeachment articles were delivered to the Senate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Separately on Sunday, Nadler spoke with Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “in any trial, all relevant witnesses must be heard,” except, Nadler added, for Hunter Biden, who should not be a witness in the impeachment trial because he does not know the allegations against the president.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    So – to clarify the left’s position on witnesses:

    • Parnas – who is at best a secondary witness and worst desperate for a deal to avoid prison – should be a witness “as he can connect the dots;”

    • but Hunter Biden – who is absolutely at the center of the whole debacle with regard corruption and Trump’s decisions – shouldn’t be a witness because “he has no knowledge of the accusations.”

    Once again the Dems ties themselves in circles after Pelosi slow-played the process – despite exclaiming how critical and urgent it was.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R- S.C.) held nothing back in his disgust at the political “malarkey” under way. In an interview with “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace, graham blasted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- C.A.) had “orchestrated the trial of holy hell” against the president next week.

    Graham said from day one, Pelosi and Democrats waged war against Trump.

    “You took 48 days to impeach this president,” he told Wallace.

    You did not allow him to call any witnesses. He could not have a lawyer present during the House Intel Committee. This has been a partisan railroad job. And you’re asking for fairness in the Senate? You violated every norm of what we do.”

    Graham ended the interview by saying once the impeachment trial is over, the nation can start healing.

    This has been a political hit job. This is political revenge. What they’re doing to the presidency is a danger to the institution itself,” he warned.

    The impeachment trial starts Tuesday, and this will be one of the most crucial moments of the Trump presidency as the Democrats have gone all-in.

    Trump tweeted last week: “I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!”

    Trump’s legal team said Saturday the impeachment trial is “a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.”

    This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away,” the legal team stated.

    And one can’t help but feel the Trump legal team and Graham are right when the schizophrenic blinkered perspectives of the House managers’ media appearances (and liberal media acquiescence) is considered.  


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 18:30

    Tags

  • 944 Trillion Reasons Why The Fed Is Quietly Bailing Out Hedge Funds
    944 Trillion Reasons Why The Fed Is Quietly Bailing Out Hedge Funds

    On Friday, Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari, who just two months earlier made a stunning proposal when he said that it was time for the Fed to pick up where the USSR left off and start redistributing wealth (at least Kashkari chose the proper entity: since the Fed has launched central planning across US capital markets, it would also be proper in the banana republic that the US has become, that the same Fed also decides who gets how much and the entire democracy/free enterprise/free market farce be skipped altogether) issued a challenge to “QE conspiracists” which apparently now also includes his FOMC colleague (and former Goldman Sachs co-worker), Robert Kaplan, in which he said “QE conspiracists can say this is all about balance sheet growth. Someone explain how swapping one short term risk free instrument (reserves) for another short term risk free instrument (t-bills) leads to equity repricing. I don’t see it.

    To the delight of Kashkari, who this year gets to vote and decide the future of US monetary policy yet is completely unaware of how the plumbing underneath US capital markets actually works, we did so for his benefit on Friday, although we certainly did not have to: after all, the “central banks’ central bank”, the Bank for International Settlements, did a far better job than we ever could in its December 8 report, “September stress in dollar repo markets: passing or structural?”, which explained not just why the September repo disaster took place on the supply side (i.e., the sudden, JPMorgan-mediated liquidity shortage at the “top 4” commercial banks which prevented them from lending into the repo market)…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … but also on the demand side, which as Claudo Borio, head of the monetary and economic department at the BIS, explained was the result “high demand for secured (repo) funding from non-bank financial institutions, such as hedge funds heavily engaged in leveraging up relative value trades.

    Incidentally, we harbor a slight suspicion that Kashkari, who also admitted to “finding amusement in needling critics calling them conspiracists or goldbugs” (which is a delightfully ironic statement for a person responsible for the biggest asset bubble in history, and one which we are confident in 1-2 years time he would love to retract), was being disingenuous and knows exactly how the Fed is impacting markets, because in what was perhaps the most important news last week which flew under the radar, the WSJ reported that the Fed was considering lending cash directly to – i.e., bailing out – hedge funds, or as we put it, “Fed officials are considering a new tool to ease repo market stress: namely bypassing the existing system entirely, and lending cash directly to smaller banks, securities dealers and hedge funds through the repo market’s clearinghouse, the Fixed Income Clearing Corp., or FICC.

    And so we once again get to the real issue at hand, namely the bailout of those hedge funds which even the BIS said were on the verge of failure had the repo market not been unfrozen – and which the Fed was all too aware of – and had the massive leverage that some hedge funds operate under collapsed, forcing an unprecedented liquidation cascade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Incidentally, it is the repo-utilizing hedge funds that is the transmission mechanism of the Fed’s monetary policy, and the source of so much Neel Kashkari confusion. Luckily for Neel, and everyone else still confused, the BIS explained that too:

    Shifts in repo borrowing and lending by non-bank participants may have also played a role in the repo rate spike. Market commentary suggests that, in preceding quarters, leveraged players (eg hedge funds) were increasing their demand for Treasury repos to fund arbitrage trades between cash bonds and derivatives.

    And there you have it: when properly funded, repos issued by commercial banks are critical in preserving and boosting risk prices, by way of levered hedge fund pair trades; indeed as the FT noted in December, “one increasingly popular hedge fund strategy involves buying US Treasuries while selling equivalent derivatives contracts, such as interest rate futures, and pocketing the arb, or difference in price between the two.”

    While on its own this trade is not very profitable, given the close relationship in price between the two sides of the trade. But as LTCM knows too well, that’s what leverage is for. Lots and lots and lots of leverage. And when the repo market seized in September, the risk was that all this leverage would be pulled, forcing an unprecedented liquidation wave among the massively levered hedge fund world.

    Hence the need for an emergency liquidity intervention by the Fed.

    But as the WSJ noted, it’s not just about preserving a handful of hedge funds – fundamentally, the very foundation of the US financial system was suddenly at risk, and with the Fed suddenly targeting liquidity injections into claringhouses, it immediately became apparent what the weakest link was: Clearinghouses themselves.

    This is hardly the first time we have discussed clearinghouses as the weakest link in the US financial system. As a reminder, the “hail mary” thesis of the uber bearish CIO of Horseman Global, Russel Clark (who in 2019 was down a record 35%) is that clearinghouses will collapse as liquidity is drained from the market:

    LCH claim to have done a quadrillion of compression trades or netting in the last year, this is more than twice the notional of all outstanding interest rate derivatives.

    If initial margins rise significantly, the only assets that will see a bid will be cash, US treasuries, JGBs, Bunds, Yen and Swiss Franc. Everything else will likely face selling pressure. If a major clearinghouse should fail due to two counterparties failing, then many centrally cleared hedges will also fail. If this happens, you will not receive the cash from your bearish hedge, as the counterparty has gone bust, and the clearinghouse needs to pay from its own capital or even get be recapitalised itself.

    For those confused, here is another quick primer on clearinghouses from Horseman’s November letter to clients:

    Clearinghouses have become the center of the financial system, but they do not bear the cost of any mistakes they make in pricing risks. This is borne by other clearinghouse members. But what the BIS note and the note issued by the banks and other users of clearinghouses makes clear is that the market has become very directional, with banks supplying liquidity to the repo market, while leveraged funds are taking liquidity (until 2017 banks were taking liquidity from the system). As the near bankruptcy of a clearinghouse highlighted last year, it is other members that bear the risk when things go wrong, and hence big US banks have acted rationally in looking to reduce liquidity to the repo market, which of course forced the Federal Reserve to act.

    And since things are getting a bit fuzzy, let’s summarize here what we know:

    1. The repo crisis was the result of a liquidity shortfall at the “Top 4” banks, precipitated by JPMorgan’s drain of over $100BN in repo market liquidity (a wise move, which eventually forced the Fed to launch QE4, and helped JPM report its most profitable year on record, and which Elizabeth Warren shrieked about and vowed to investigate but ultimately did nothing at all)
    2. The Fed addressed the “supply side” of the Sept repo crisis by injecting over $400BN in liquidity to replenish bank reserve levels, first via repo and then via T-Bill POMO, i.e., QE4.
    3. The Fed has yet to address the “demand side” of the Sept repo crisis, namely the market transmission mechanism which is intermediated by hedge funds. And it is here that, as the WSJ reported, the Fed is currently contemplating providing liquidity directly to hedge funds to prevent a systemic collapse during the next repo crisis, whenever it may strike.

    But going back to the clearinghouse issue, how are these linked to the potential failure of a handful of (massive) hedge funds? Well, we have an explanation for that too, and it once again comes from Horseman’s Russell Clark, who in his latest letter to the few clients he has left (which is a damn shame, because despite his dismal performance in 2019, one can argue that Clark is one of the best investors of his generation, yet one who will soon be out of a job due to endless central bank intervention), writes that “since 2016, its has become much harder to short. There are two reasons. One is negative interest rates have made almost any amount of investment risk justifiable, as owning a safe asset will cost you in real terms. The second is that the malinvestment has moved from bad investment in real assets, into bad investment in financial structures that actually push up markets before crashing them.”

    How is that relevant to clearinghouses… thus hedge funds… thus repo… thus liquidity… thus the Fed…. thus QE4? Clark explains:

    In 2019 there were many signs that the Japanese were perhaps beginning to step away from US debt markets, which made me very bearish. Yet US corporate debt continued to trade very well, which ultimately was the main support for US markets. As I looked more and more closely at clearinghouses, I realised the way they priced risk, and the provided leverage through compression, meant they were the grease that kept the US debt markets operating, and in fact kept spreads much tighter than they should be.

    This brings us to the punchline, namely the reason why clearinghouses have emerged as the weakest link in the Frankenstein monster of a market that the Fed has created over the past decade, and why the Fed is, quietly, preparing to backstop hedge funds and clearinghouses themselves during the next crisis. Or rather 944 trillion reasons. Here is Clark’s conclusion:

    Regulators, clearinghouses and central banks have published notes saying that clearinghouses are safe and the problems in the Swedish exchange in 2018 were due to one rogue trader. But when the biggest clients of the clearinghouses, banks, say there is a problem, then I suspect they are right. I spent the Christmas period trying to prove that compression is dangerous, and the best nugget I could come from was from the biggest interest rate clearinghouse in the world, LCH.

    In a pamphlet on their website, pushing the benefits of “Compression with Swap Clear”, in the 12 months to October 2019, LCH did a record 944 trillion USD (11x world GDP) of compression. LCH also provide an estimate of the amount of capital this saved members (i.e. banks) under Basel III, a princely 37 million USD. To restate, USD 944 trillion of compression, yielded the banks USD 37 million of regulatory capital saving.

    Which leads to the 944 trillion dollar question asked by the Horseman CIO: “If the banks are not benefitting, who is?”

    His answer:

    “Leverage funds with huge interest rate derivative positions. And who is on the hook if they blow up? The big banks who are on the other side of the trade, as they would be forced to recapitalise the clearinghouses.

    In other words, if enough liquidity is drained, mutual assured destruction between funds and banks will almost instantly follow. And since banks are now aware of the risk and are trying to reduce their exposure, it is very hard if not impossible to see how this can be unwound “without triggering all the other bad financial structures and malinvestment that QE has produced.”

    It also explains why the Fed had to get involved, if under the guise of saving the repo market, when in reality the Fed was once again bailing out the banks and levered funds that are facing trillions of dollars in losses should one clearinghouse go under, as the cascade of resulting events would lead to a domino effect where one counterparty after another failed, and one clearinghouse after another has to be bailed out, initially by banks, and ultimately by the Fed.

    And there you have it: while the September repo crisis was fundamentally represented by the Fed as one of insufficient reserves, and the resultant QE4 was painted by Powell merely as an exercise in “reserve management” the real reason why the Fed stepped in so decisively was to prevent a cascading sequence of hedge fund failures that would have not only sent the market crashing as funds were forced to liquidate all positions once leverage as high as 10x (see chart above) was yanked, but would culminate in the failure of one or more clearinghouses. Which is also why now that the Fed has stepped in, and backstopped this weakest link, stocks keep hitting new all time highs.

    As for Mr Kashkari’s childish “needling of critics”, if after reading the above he still doesn’t understand what is going on, we have a suggestion: announce on Monday the Fed will no longer inject $100 billion in liquidity each month via repo and POMO, and see what happens to the stock market. After all, the Fed’s actions – or in this case the lack thereof – do not lead to “equity repricing”, right?


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 18:25

  • Eric Peters: Peter Navarro Was Right – Tariffs Have Spurred Growth, Not Hampered It
    Eric Peters: Peter Navarro Was Right – Tariffs Have Spurred Growth, Not Hampered It

    Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    “Conventional economic models ignore how Trump’s tariffs boost investment and national security,” wrote Peter Navarro, the President’s Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy.

    His Jan 13th WSJ opinion piece, like most things Navarro publishes, provide real insight into Trump policy/thinking. But Navarro is an annoying hothead, so most people dismiss him.

    I’ve condensed his piece: “Critics of Trump’s transformational trade policies continue to insist that the tariffs are hindering rather than helping the boom. Yet with each new tariff the economy remains robust, wages continue to rise, and inflation stays muted (while the economic losses for China continue to grow).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tariffs have spurred growth, not hampered it. Why have the gloom-and-doom forecasters been so wrong? The errors come from flaws in traditional economic models. Anti-tariff analysts typically rely on static “partial equilibrium” models. While a tariff on steel might boost employment in that industry, for example, the price of steel would rise for car makers downstream, which would then suffer lower production and fewer jobs.

    Each tariff shrinks total employment, depresses wages, and increases inflation—or at least that’s how these forecasts typically go. Yet what is missing from these forecasts is a ‘general equilibrium’ analysis of tariffs, which would assess the whole economy, with a concomitant ‘dynamic scoring’ of their effects, to account for the new investment tariffs induce. Over time this tariff-induced investment, along with lower taxes and sensible deregulation, will boost growth and job creation. Higher domestic production will also help offset any price hikes from the tariffs.

    Trump’s imposition of actual tariffs has made the threat of tariffs more credible, and a variety of tariff threats have borne robust results. In addition to missing the upside of supporting American industries, critics overlook the ways the US has suffered under open trade. Expanded trade with China in the 2000s contributed to the loss of tens of thousands of American factories and millions of manufacturing jobs and the hollowing out of many communities. What followed was an associated rise in the rates of divorce, drug addiction, crime, depression and death, particularly among blue-collar men no longer able to support their families at a decent wage.

    The national-security externalities associated with Trump trade policy may be even more consequential. A case in point is the tariffs being used as leverage to defend America’s technological crown jewels from being forcibly transferred to Chinese companies—from artificial intelligence, robotics and autonomous vehicles to quantum computing and blockchain. These industries comprise the core of the next generation of weapons systems needed to repel threats from rivals like China, Russia and Iran.

    One must ask the anti-tariff forecasters: Where are the benefits of a freer and more secure American homeland counted in your models? An honest, modern analysis of the Trump tariffs would acknowledge the widespread market distortions that currently disadvantage American workers, parse the complex ways tariffs affect trade partners’ behavior, appropriately discount short-term price impacts, and dynamically score the many long-term positive effects.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 18:10

  • After Hilarious 'Where's Putin?' Moment, Little Progress Made At Berlin Peace Conference On Libya
    After Hilarious ‘Where’s Putin?’ Moment, Little Progress Made At Berlin Peace Conference On Libya

    Little was expected to come out of Sunday’s Germany-hosted Libya peace conference, given several prior ceasefires have failed, and also given Gen. Khalifa Haftar sees his Libyan National Army (LNA) as having the military upper hand on the ground as his offensive against the GNA in Tripoli under Fayez al-Serraj continues. 

    Predictably, Haftar balked at signing so much as a temporary truce in Berlin, but instead a mere ‘ceasefire committee’ has been established to reach a pause in fighting. To gain a sense of just how little was accomplished as world leaders — including Erdogan, Putin, Macron, Merkel, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo  gathered in Berlin, one might note these lines from a Bloomberg brief post mortem: Neither Sarraj nor Haftar were in the room for the summit on Sunday, and organizers were careful to ensure they did not cross paths in Berlin. Instead they were holed up for some of the day at separate hotels in the city.”

    However, world leaders did agree in theory to renew their commitment to a UN arms embargo on all sides of the Libya conflict — though this looks also immediately shaky as well given Turkish parliament recently approved sending military aid and troops to defend Tripoli’s GNA, not to mention Syrian mercenaries being shipped into the war. Of course, the moment one side accuses the other of violating the embargo, any theoretical agreement will unravel before it’s even enacted. So while the Berlin peace summit was in reality uneventful in impacting the military situation on the ground, there was one entertaining and interesting bright spot from the day. It came as the group of world leaders gathered for a photo op at the meeting’s start, and is being dubbed the “Where’s Putin?” moment:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Perhaps in unintended acknowledgement of just how crucial Putin’s presence was to the proceedings (Russia is a key political backer of Haftar, while on the other side backing the GNA is Erdogan), German Chancellor Angela Merkel is seen for several moments looking around for Putin, while appearing to question those next to her, including Macron, over his whereabouts. President Putin then strolled in fashionably late alongside Italian PM Giuseppe Conte, and the minor “crisis” was averted. 

    On a more serious note, the dividing lines on Libya were visible early in the proceedings, with Erdogan saying at the start of a meeting with Putin, “To implement the other stages of the political process and solution, Haftar’s aggressive stance must come to an end.” Erdogan had last week warned he would teach Haftar “a lesson” if he didn’t halt the offensive on Tripoli. This after approving sending Turkish national troops to assist in the battle against Haftar. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Erdogan-Putin meeting within the Berlin Conference on Libyan peace in Berlin, Germany on January 19, 2020.Via Turkish Presidency/ Anadolu Agency

    Hitting back against the Turkish position on the conflict, France’s Macron slammed the influx of foreign fighters into Libya. While not calling out Turkey directly, he expressed “acute concerns over the arrival of Syrian and foreign fighters in the city of Tripoli” which “must end” according to his remarks — a clear reference to Turkey after multiple reports have confirmed the transfer of at least 2,000 Syrian ‘rebel’ militants to the theater. 

    German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas summarized the main thrust of the Berlin conference and continuing efforts at working toward a lasting ceasefire: “Europe and those players who are influential” have been called to Germany because “we have to make sure Libya doesn’t become a second Syria”.

    Regrettably, in response to the German FM’s point, no world leader stepped forward to point out the obvious — that neither Libya nor the world would be in this mess of witnessing a deadly Libya War 2.0 tearing the region apart in the first place if it hadn’t been for the 2011 US-NATO regime change war to topple longtime secular autocrat  Muammar Gaddafi.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 17:50

  • Bloomberg Journo Fabricates Bernie Sanders Quote About Buttigieg Having A 'Gay Problem'
    Bloomberg Journo Fabricates Bernie Sanders Quote About Buttigieg Having A ‘Gay Problem’

    In the latest example of MSM hackery, Bloomberg reporter Emma Kinery took it upon herself to fabricate a quote from Bernie Sanders (I-VA) to suggest that 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg has a ‘gay’ problem.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    During an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, Sanders was asked if gender is “still an obstacle for female politicians,” to which he replied: “yes, but I think everybody has their own set of problems. I’m 78 years of age, that’s a problem … If you’re looking at Buttigieg, he’s a young guy.

    Except, Kinery – in a now-deleted tweet, quoted Sanders as saying:

    Buttigieg is young and Buttigieg is gay.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    With no explanation or apology, Kinery deleted her tweet and re-tweeted a verbatim transcript:

    Amazing!

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 01/19/2020 – 17:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 19th January 2020

  • Why Is Western Media Not Questioning The Mysterious Death Of Australian Youth Activist Wilson Gavin?
    Why Is Western Media Not Questioning The Mysterious Death Of Australian Youth Activist Wilson Gavin?

    Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Following a protest against a ‘drag queen story time’ at a library in Australia, Wilson Gavin, 21, the president of the University of Queensland Liberal National Club, was found dead the next morning at a train station.

    Local media, while going out its way to portray Gavin and his fellow protesters as hell-raisers, has yet to ask any serious questions with regards to the young man’s alleged suicide – at a time when he was reportedly house-sitting for a Liberal National Party Senator.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If ever there was a story that epitomizes exactly how low Western media has sunk, the story involving the events leading up to the tragic death of Wilson Gavin would have to rank very high.

    On Sunday, Gavin and about fifteen members of the University of Queensland’s Liberal National Club (UQLNC) walked into the Brisbane Square Library where a ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ event for children was in full swing. Gavin went face-to-face with the star of the show, drag queen Johnny Valkyrie, aka Queenie, as the group began to chant “drag queens are not for kids.” No violence, no broken chairs, just a group of university students expressing their displeasure with a controversial event that is sponsored by the local government, i.e. the taxpayers.

    What happened next was as predictable as winter in Russia. Social media lit up with thousands of people providing their personal commentary on the incident. An extra big log was tossed on the fire as the popular Australian band, The Veronicas, shared footage of the incident on Instagram, with the smug remark, ‘bigotry is alive in Brisbane today.’

    The New Zealand Herald described the social media backlash that ensued against Wilson Gavin by quoting a friend, who wished to remain anonymous (“out of fear of becoming a target” too, the paper explained): “Gavin was relentlessly trolled with vile insults and taunts, and … received some messages with an encouragement that he die.”

    “Some members of his family, classmates and friends were tracked down and contacted, while his school, The University of Queensland, was publicly encouraged to kick him out.”

    The between-the-line message here seems to be, ‘see what happens to people who protest too much?’

    As the media went to great lengths to demonstrate the public wrath Gavin had incurred for daring to speak his mind at a library event (The Herald exhausted the bulk of its article discussing the “dangers of mob rule” on social media and “public shaming”), it failed to show the tremendous outpouring of support that he and his fellow students had received. The comments on social media were divided into two camps, which is normally the case involving any controversial subject. After all, millions of people are vigorously opposed to the idea of drag queens reading stories to children at public libraries, or at any other venue for that matter. Yet the media seriously downplayed that side of the debate, pushing the idea that “public shaming” led to Gavin’s decision to end his life. More on that later.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Another particularly inexplicable aspect about the media coverage is that every single publication sympathized with the drag queens and their ‘storytelling’ to very young children, as if nothing could be more natural. What books were the queens reading from? We are never told, but somehow I doubt it was Jack and Jill, unless one or both of them had undergone a sex-change operation along the way. But I digress.

    The main message the media strove to deliver was that the young protesters were mean brutes, intimidating the performers and frightening staff and children, as if the sight of well-dressed college students chanting a slogan was the worst possible thing that could happen to them. Meanwhile, there was zero discussion about the possible psychological effects a child may experience when confronted with drag queens, as well as their personal choice of fine literature. No discussion as to why there needs to be a Drag Queen Story Time for children – paid for out of the public purse – in the first place. No comments provided by respectable psychologists about the possible mental side effects these children could face down the road. Instead, the media pushed the ridiculous narrative that the families suffered the very worst ordeal.

    ABC Australia, for example, interviewed Jenny Griffin, a mother of two children, ages 6 and 8, who commented, “I was worried, I was concerned for my kids’ safety,” she said. “This was their first introduction to this more violent homophobia.”

    Valkyrie, aka Queenie, said, “There were children crying, families distressed and of course, [fellow drag queen] Diamond (whose full stage name is ‘Diamond Good-rim,’ a clear allusion to a sexual act that should be considered inappropriate for children) and I were victim to vilification, harassment and nuisance.”

    After several minutes of publicly expressing their criticism, the Queensland students peacefully exited the building, escorted by a single security guard.

    End of story? Unfortunately not.

    Early the next morning, Wilson Gavin was found dead at a train station as the result of “critical injuries.” Within a matter of hours the media was calling his death a suicide. Before continuing, a few necessary words about Mr. Gavin.

    Wilson Gavin, as president of the LNC at his university, courted controversy on numerous occasions in the course of his short life. At the age of 19, Gavin, and despite being homosexual, voiced his opposition to gay marriages by organizing a ‘You Can Say No’ rally and making several appearances on national television.

    On another occasion, Gavin brilliantly defended the British monarchy on an episode of “Outsiders,” a political talk show.

    “I’m a lover of all things traditional. I’m a lover of all things beautiful,” he said on the show.

    “And there’s nothing more traditional in this country than the monarchy.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Judging by Gavin’s extremely confident demeanor in those past interviews, and at the library protest, he did not come across as a person who could be easily upset by hurtful remarks over social media. Indeed, just the opposite. He seemed to relish the opportunity to prove his detractors wrong. In short, he was a young intelligent man with a successful future ahead of him, and that fact may have unsettled his enemies. Although it is impossible to know what is going on inside of any person’s head, the fact that Gavin’s alleged suicide has shocked so many people is telling.

    According to the Star Observer (“Setting Australia’s LGBTI agenda since 1979,” it declares in its masthead), “Gavin was found dead at Chelmer Railway Station this morning at 7:07am. Ambulance officers who attended say he died from critical injuries, but have provided no further details.”

    On Thursday, The Guardian provided one short sentence regarding police accounts of the death: “Police did not treat his death as suspicious.”

    In place of hard-hitting questions, the article provided the number for a suicide hotline as if the case was already closed. While a nice gesture that is not the sort of information the public needs from the media. Journalists need to be asking how a young man met his early demise at a train station in the wee hours of the morning following a protest that triggered a lot of controversy on social media. The public deserves to know more about the circumstances of the alleged suicide considering the context of events prior to that tragic moment Why is the possibility of foul play not mentioned – not even within the context to deny it, as if this were some sort of impossibility – as a matter of protocol in such a case?

    One more note. As mentioned earlier, on the weekend of his death, Gavin had been minding the home of a politician, who has been identified as federal Liberal National Party Senator Paul Scarr, the Daily Mail Australia reported. Yet Liberal National politicians have said they have been disaffiliated from the UQLNC that Gavin headed since last month. Now, considering how media rarely shies away from sensational stories, the fact that it is not following up on this bit of information is, at the very least, strange.

    Since the death of Wilson Gavin and the protest he organized, two petitions have been started on Brisbane City Council’s website to ban the Drag Queen Story Time events.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 23:30

  • False Flag? Fmr CIA Officer Suggests US Hacked Ukrainian Plane Transponder To Provoke Iran Shootdown
    False Flag? Fmr CIA Officer Suggests US Hacked Ukrainian Plane Transponder To Provoke Iran Shootdown

    Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the CIA, penned a piece in the American Herald Tribune speculating that the U.S. launched several cyber-attacks, one on an Iranian missile defense system, and another on the transponder of the doomed Ukrainian plane.

    Giraldi explains the Iranian missile operator experienced extreme “jamming” and Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752’s transponder was switched off several minutes before the two Russian made Tor missiles were launched. 

    “The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired,” he said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Giraldi said the Tor missile system used by Iran is vulnerable to being hacked or “spoofed,” and at the same moment, Flight 752’s transponder was taken offline “to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.”

    The Pentagon has reportedly developed technologies that can trick enemy radars with false and deceptively moving targets, he said. 

    “The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability,” Giraldi said.

    Iran made the claim Wednesday that “enemy sabotage” cannot be ruled out in the downing of the plane. 

    Iranian Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi suggested the U.S. hacked missile defense systems to make it appear Flight 752 was an incoming missile. 

    Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also accused the U.S. of being responsible for the downing of the plane, saying that:

    “The root of all sorrows goes back to America… this cannot be a reason for us not to look into all the root causes.”

    He added that:

    “One cannot believe that a passenger plane is struck near an international airport while flying in a [commercial] flight channel,” after previously saying that IRGC commanders were not the only ones involved in the plane downing, noting that “There were others, too.”

    The Iranian parliament also stated that “we are in powerful confrontation with the criminal U.S. and do not allow a mistake… to pave the ground for misusing the issue by the enemies.”

    Giraldi concludes by saying electronic warfare by the U.S. to bring down a civilian jet and blame it on Iran “suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event” to create a false flag for the next world war. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 23:00

    Tags

  • How The US Wages War To Prop Up The Dollar
    How The US Wages War To Prop Up The Dollar

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    At Counterpunch, Michael Hudson has penned an important article that outlines the important connections between US foreign policy, oil, and the US dollar.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In short, US foreign policy is geared very much toward controlling oil resources as part of a larger strategy to prop up the US dollar. Hudson writes:

    The assassination was intended to escalate America’s presence in Iraq to keep control of the region’s oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia’s Wahabi troops (Isis, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America’s foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of the U.S. dollar. That remains the key to understanding this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.

    The actual context for the neocon’s action was the balance of payments, and the role of oil and energy as a long-term lever of American diplomacy.

    Basically, the US’s propensity for driving up massive budget deficits has created a need for immense amounts of deficit spending. This can be handled through selling lots of government debt, or through monetizing the debt. But what if there isn’t enough global demand for US debt? That would mean the US would have to pay more interest on its debt. Or, the US could monetize the debt through the central bank. But that might cause the value of the dollar to crash. So, the US regime realized that it must find ways to prevent the glut of dollars and debt from actually destroying the value of the dollar. Fortunately for the regime, this can be partly managed, it turns out, through foreign policy. Hudson continues:

    The solution [to the problem of maintaining the demand for dollars] turned out to be to replace gold with U.S. Treasury securities (IOUs) as the basis of foreign central bank reserves. After 1971, foreign central banks had little option for what to do with their continuing dollar inflows except to recycle them to the U.S. economy by buying U.S. Treasury securities. The effect of U.S. foreign military spending thus did not undercut the dollar’s exchange rate, and did not even force the Treasury and Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to attract foreign exchange to offset the dollar outflows on military account. In fact, U.S. foreign military spending helped finance the domestic U.S. federal budget deficit.

    An important piece of this strategy has been a continued alliance with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia maintains the world’s largest capacity for oil production, and it was the largest single producer of crude for most of the period from the mid-1970s to 2018, when the US surpassed both Saudi Arabia and Russia.

    But Saudi Arabia remains under the US thumb:

    what Saudi Arabia does not save in dollarized assets with its oil-export earnings is spent on buying hundreds of billion of dollars of U.S. arms exports. This locks them into dependence on U.S. supply [of] replacement parts and repairs, and enables the United States to turn off Saudi military hardware at any point of time, in the event that the Saudis may try to act independently of U.S. foreign policy.

    So maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. Foreign countries do not have to pay the Pentagon directly for this spending. They simply finance the U.S. Treasury and U.S. banking system.

    However, any move away from this status quo tends to be met with paranoia and intervention from the US:

    Fear of this development was a major reason why the United States moved against Libya, whose foreign reserves were held in gold, not dollars, and which was urging other African countries to follow suit in order to free themselves from “Dollar Diplomacy.” Hillary and Obama invaded, grabbed their gold supplies (we still have no idea who ended up with these billions of dollars’ worth of gold) and destroyed Libya’s government, its public education system, its public infrastructure …

    But the role of oil-producing states goes beyond merely churning dollars and US debt to keep the dollar afloat. These countries also provide the foot soldiers for many US interventions in terms of terrorists and guerrilla fighters who can be used against US enemies. Hudson declares:

    The Vietnam War showed that modern democracies cannot field armies for any major military conflict, because this would require a draft of its citizens. That would lead any government attempting such a draft to be voted out of power. And without troops, it is not possible to invade a country to take it over.

    The corollary of this perception is that democracies have only two choices when it comes to military strategy: They can only wage airpower, bombing opponents; or they can create a foreign legion, that is, hire mercenaries or back foreign governments that provide this military service.

    That is, the US regime can certainly get away with lots of bombing operations and other low-manpower operations. But anything that might require conscription is a political nonstarter. Hudson notes that Saudi Arabia, with its particularly rabid and extreme strain of Islam is quite useful:

    Here once again Saudi Arabia plays a critical role, through its control of Wahabi Sunnis turned into terrorist jihadis willing to sabotage, bomb, assassinate, blow up and otherwise fight any target designated as an enemy of “Islam,” the euphemism for Saudi Arabia acting as U.S. client state. (Religion really is not the key; I know of no ISIS or similar Wahabi attack on Israeli targets.) The United States needs the Saudis to supply or finance Wahabi crazies. So in addition to playing a key role in the U.S. balance of payments by recycling its oil-export earnings into U.S. stocks, bonds and other investments, Saudi Arabia provides manpower by supporting the Wahabi members of America’s foreign legion, ISIS and Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda. Terrorism has become the “democratic” mode of today’s U.S. military policy.

    Hudson also notes that the term “democracy,” when used in the context of foreign policy, has very little to do with what a normal person would regard as democracy. Rather,

    From the U.S. vantage point, what is a “democracy”? In today’s Orwellian vocabulary, it means any country supporting U.S. foreign policy. … The antonym to “democracy” is “terrorist.” That simply means a nation willing to fight to become independent from U.S. neoliberal democracy.

    And this leads us to Iran. Hudson explains:

    America’s hatred of Iran starts with its attempt to control its own oil production, exports and earnings. It goes back to 1953, when Mossadegh was overthrown because he wanted domestic sovereignty over Anglo-Persian oil. The CIA-MI6 coup replaced him with the pliant Shah, who imposed a police state to prevent Iranian independence from U.S. policy. The only physical places free from the police were the mosques. That made the Islamic Republic the path of least resistance to overthrowing the Shah and re-asserting Iranian sovereignty.

    Thus, we got the Islamic revolution of 1979 which has led to forty years of Iran refusing to play ball in the US dollar maintenance regime that is demanded of other oil-producing nations in the Middle East.

    The US is unlikely to let up on this effort so long as Iran continues to refuse to take orders from DC on these matters. It’s true that the US can’t do much about China and Russia. But Iran — unlike North Korea, which wisely secured nuclear arms for itself — remains an easy target because of its lack of nuclear capability.

    Being a leftist, Hudson includes some unfortunate stuff about “neoliberalism,” as if low taxes and freedom to trade were somehow driving global war. Hudson also concocts a theory about how this oil-dollar policy is driving global warming. That’s a bit of a stretch, but the connection between foreign policy and the US dollar that he identifies is a key factor that tends to be almost universally ignored by the mainstream media. As China and Russia work ever harder to undermine the dollar and its geopolitical position, small countries like Iran will become even more important in the US’s drive to maintain the dollar’s status quo. But it remains to be seen how long the US can keep it going.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 22:30

  • F-18 Fighters To Drop Live Bombs On Florida Swamp This Weekend
    F-18 Fighters To Drop Live Bombs On Florida Swamp This Weekend

    According to a statement published by the Naval Air Station Jacksonville, the US Navy is preparing to conduct live bombing raids with fighter jets at a training facility in the middle of Florida this weekend. 

    The Navy will fly McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. from Saturday through Sunday, dropping live and inert bombs at Pinecastle Range Complex in the Ocala National Forest.

    Residents in surrounding communities will hear explosions and loud noises, especially fighter jets traveling at subsonic speeds. 

    Here’s a 2012 video of an F-18 jet “5 miles” from the Pinecastle Range completing a tactical turn. 

    A 2011 video records the moment when bombs were dropped on the range. 

    Local news station provides more information about Pinecatle Range. 

    Residents from Volusia, Lake and Marion counties will hear fighter jets and bombs throughout the weekend. Residents as far as Seminole and northern Orange County could also hear explosions. 

    “During bombing periods, wildlife may be temporarily displaced. Use extra caution when driving through the Ocala National Forest and surrounding areas,” the Navy said. “Secure any items around your residence that could attract wildlife. Always be mindful of larger animals, including black bears, and practice bearwise measures.”

    With the threat of war elevated in 2020 – the Navy is actively preparing its pilots for combat by bombing the hell out swamps in the middle of Florida. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 22:05

  • Over-Hyped Russian Hypersonics?
    Over-Hyped Russian Hypersonics?

    Authored by Michael Brenner via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Deployment of Russia’s hyper-sonic missiles is causing heartburn in the West. Media headline the news as a dramatic breakthrough on a par with the first Sputnik. “Experts” are rushed into play like those self-styled pundits pronouncing when the initial exit polls appear on Election Day. Pentagon officials assure us that the United States is at the top of the nuclear game and able to respond to (if not exactly match) anything that the Russians can put out there.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ninety eight percent of all this instant reaction is “fog-horning.” It simply signals that something big and important is out there even though we don’t have a clear picture of its actual shape or dimensions — or its significance. That’s normal. What counts is moving swiftly to the “searchlight” stage of close observation and hard thinking.

    Whether analysts, official or otherwise, get there is problematic. We’re out of practice when it comes to serious strategic appraisal. After all, we’ve been flailing about in Afghanistan for almost two decades with no realistic aim or evaluation of the chances of achieving it by whatever means at whatever cost. The disorientation on Syria is even greater. There, we haven’t as much as figured out who are the “bad guys” and who are the “good guys” — except for ISIS.

    If you can’t differentiate friend from foe for want of rigorous strategic analysis, your actions are predictably erratic — little more than the expression of mental fibrillations. The same can be said for the rest of the Missile East.

    The Washington consensus is sure about one thing: Russia is a mortal enemy. We sanction the Russians, we denounce the Russia, we coerce our European partners into ostracizing them, we conjure frightful images of Vladimir Putin while ignoring just about everything he says (as if they were Hitlerian rants). Still, no one seems able to provide a crisp formulation of what the Russian threat is — other than getting in our way in places where we demand to have full sway: Syria, Libya, Iran, Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia.

    Of course, we also accuse them of working relentlessly to undermine American democracy. Yet, that remains debatable as does everything that bears the dubious label of “Washington consensus.” Anyway, whatever minuscule role the Kremlin might have in the accelerated unravelling of the American Republic, it barely registers amidst the hammer blows struck by the craziness of President Donald Trump, his enablers and a largely compromised, abject resistance.

    Cold War Dread

    Understandably, it is not that easy to overlook nuclear weapons. It wasn’t that long ago that many of us were tormented by the dread of a prospective Armageddon, when the Cold War carried manifest dangers, when the air was thick with hostility and menace.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In October 1962, Americans were terrified over Soviet missiles in Cuba, as this newspaper map showing distances between Cuba and major North American cities demonstrates.

    Those acute fears gradually faded over the 40 years of the nuclearized Cold War. We came to live with the Bomb — if not to love it. Subsequently, concerns shifted to the risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation among less stable states in more fraught places.

    The reasons for this sedating were three-fold.

    • Above all was the “balance of terror.’’ Leaders among the major nuclear powers absorbed the fundamental truth that not only was the notion of “winning” a nuclear war an oxymoron — but also that any use of nuclear weapons inexorably would escalate into acts of collective suicide. The survivors would envy the dead — as Nikita Khrushchev one said. That conviction became formalized in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

    • Second, it was reified by a number of treaties and understandings: START I,II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), the Anti-BallisticMissile Treaty (ABMT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, introduction of the Hot Line between the White House and the Kremlin, and the several arms reduction accords signed when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in Moscow. Their collective purpose was to ensure that no conceivable advantage might be gained that would jeopardize — however slightly — the balance of nuclear power, i.e. the assurance that any resort to nuclear weapons was tantamount to the death of civilization.

    • Finally, a number of technological developments reinforced Mutual  Assured Destruction: the deployment of submarine launched ballistic missiles — SLBM (immune to location and possible destruction in a “first strike” — thereby, guaranteeing a retaliatory capability); improved controls that reduced the chances of an “accidental” or miscalculated launch; and the moratorium in placing ballistic missile defenses around major population centers that could have the effect of removing their “hostage” status.

    The last has turned out to be a largely redundant measure since the strenuous efforts of the Pentagon/NASA as well as their Soviet/Russian counterparts to devise a workable BMD all have come up well short of producing anything meaningful.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sign joint communiqué to limit strategic offensive arms, 1974. (Wikimedia)

    Unfortunately, two policy developments have awakened the nuclear issue from its somnambulant state. One is Washington’s abandonment of arms control treaties that were important parts of the nuclear stability package. George Bush removed us from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(while observing its provisions), and effectively voided restrictions on ballistic missile defense in the vain hope of countering remote threats from prospective nuclear powers (Iran), bolstering the sense of security of some East Europeans (a non-solution to a non-problem)and – frankly – to get under the Russians’ skin. Barack Obama had neither the conviction nor political courage to reverse those retrograde moves.

    Under Donald Trump, there has been a comprehensive plan to break free of all manner of restrictive commitments — military, diplomatic or economic. Deployment of regional BMD systems directed at Russian, Chinese and North Korean forces has been expanded despite their demonstrated efficiencies (one version could not even protect Saudi oil complexes or U.S. air bases in Iraq from primitive Iranian missiles).

    Modernization of Nuclear Arsenals

    The other troubling development concerns the modernization of nuclear arsenals by both the United States and Russia. President Barack Obama committed us to a trillion-dollar program to refine and upgrade American warheads and delivery systems over the next 20 years. The strategic rationale is obscure.

    The Russian hypersonic missile development is a parallel development. In a purely technical sense, they obviously are “ahead” of us. And that irritates the hell out of the American security establishment.

    Does being “ahead” have any practical meaning, however? Is there a genuine contest for advantage that translates into their gaining an upper hand in some sense or other? The clear answer is “NO!” It is strategically meaningless. Why? Because it in no way alters the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction.

    Theoretically, there are only two imaginable ways to do that. The most significant would be development/deployment of a massive, truly effective BMD system that shields population centers and other critical, high value sites from retaliatory attack. That has shown itself to be impossible – even if the initiator of an attack succeeded in reducing the other side’s retaliatory forces by some significant fraction.

    A totally disarming first strike in principle could be the second method logically to qualify MAD. It cannot be done, though.Fortunately. The combination of SLBMs, cruise missiles, and increased warhead lethality makes the idea of a disarming first strike a pipe dream of military strategists disengaged from reality.  Hypersonic weapons do not change that calculus.

    Accuracies of MIRVed warheads were lowered to 100 feet many years ago.(CEP, or Circular Error Probability = 50 percent chance of landing within radius.) Reducing that to 20 feet, therefore, is pointless – the silo is destroyed either way unless its missile has been “launched on warning” (tripwire automaticity as ultimate assurance of retaliatory strike). Similarly for missile defense.

    Then, there is the question of an incoming missile’s speed. Current ICBMs that may give 18 minutes warning do not permit any defensive measures to be taken. If they arrive on target within six minutes, there is no additional benefit to the attacker. Today’s missiles that follow a straight trajectory cannot be intercepted — with or without their distracting decoys.

    The fact that “swerve” capable hypersonic missiles can mambo their way to the target adds nothing to their effectiveness. Anyone who tells you that the Russians gain a strategic advantage thereby is lying — either in order to extract larger sums for R & D from the Treasury or to accentuate irrational fears of Russia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Vladimir Put visiting an exhibit of advanced weapons before meeting with Russia’s Defence Ministry Board, December 2019. (The Kremlin)

    Finally, no reasonably sane leader would risk national suicide for a 1 percent chance of getting away with a first strike and surviving retaliation. There is no stake worth even contemplating it. Indeed, that logic holds even were there an impossible 50 percent chance of pulling it off.

    Today, the United States and Russia are not engaged in a life-or-death struggle for world domination or for ideological vindication. Ascribing anything like that notion to Vladimir Putin is simply a sign of mental derangement – ours, not his. The same holds for the super-power competition between the United States and China.

    So, if this line of reasoning is compelling, why did Russia’s leaders bother with investment of great sums to produce hyper-sonic missiles? The answer is a matter of speculation. Doubtless, technological and bureaucratic momentum has much to do with it. These sorts of long-term programs take on a life of their own — just as they do in Washington. The is no more reason for the United States to squander a trillion dollars in refining our nuclear arsenal as two successive administrations have committed us to doing.

    In Russia’s case, there likely is another factor at work. Historically, Moscow leaders have exaggerated American technical capabilities; they have something of an inferiority complex on this score despite their own remarkable accomplishments. It is particularly acute in the nuclear realm — most especially in regard to ballistic missile defense.

    This goes back to Nixon’s proposed Safeguard system, followed two decades later by Reagan’s Star War’s plans. Neither of which in actuality had the potential to alter the strategic balance. This free-floating strategic anxiety should be placed in historical perspective. There is a touch of paranoia in the Russian strategic mind — engraved by the events of the 20th century.

    Some of this sentiment is conveyed by Putin’s remarks in announcing the deployment of hypersonic missiles: “We’re used to being in the position of catching up. That no longer is the case. Russia is the   only country that has hypersonic weapons.”

    To some unknowable degree these neuralgic points in the Russian psyche have been stimulated by the aggressive American program to surround Russia with BMD systems. “Might it just be conceivable that the United States could perfect them, make it work, and somehow jeopardize the credibility of our nuclear deterrent? Why are they expending so much money and effort? Why do those BMD sites make Poland and the Baltics feel more secure when they are in fact militarily useless and it makes no sense for us to attack them?”

    Informed analysis suggests that the answer is negative to all these questions. The alternative explanation: U.S. leaders are inclined to do feckless things; they are strategically obtuse.

    The broader lesson is that there is truth to the old adage: “Russia never is as strong as it seems; Russia is never as weak as it seems.” We wrote it off as a world power in the 1990s and never since made the proper adjustment. That perception may have contributed to the glaring failure of the United States’ intelligence community in missing Russia’s remarkable break-throughs in weaponry. 

    It’s intelligence that counts more than Intelligence.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 21:40

    Tags

  • The Quiet Crisis: Deaths Caused By Alcoholism Have More Than Doubled
    The Quiet Crisis: Deaths Caused By Alcoholism Have More Than Doubled

    Opioid overdoses may have leveled off last year after soaring over the last ten, but Americans are still dying in droves from another, far more popular substance: alcohol.

    According to a series of studies cited by MarketWatch, the number of Americans drinking themselves to death has more than doubled over the last two decades, according to a sobering new report. That far outpaces the rate of population growth during the same period.

    Researchers from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism studied the cause of death for Americans aged 16 and up between 1999 and 2017. They determined that while 35,914 deaths were tied to alcohol in 1999, it doubled to 72,558 in 2017. The rate of deaths per 100,000 soared by 50.9% from 16.9 to 25.5.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Over that 20-year period, the study determined that alcohol was involved in more than 1 million deaths. Half of these deaths resulted from liver disease, or a person drinking themselves to death, or a drug overdose that involved alcohol.

    For more context: In 2017 alone, 2.6% of roughly 2.8 million deaths in the US were alcohol-related.

    One doesn’t need to be a chronic alcoholic to suffer from alcohol: Nine states – Maine, Indiana, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia –  saw a “significant” increase in adults who binge drink, a dangerous activity that can lead to deadly car crashes and other fatal accidents, according to a report released Thursday by the CDC.

    And across the country, Americans who binge drink are consuming more drinks per person: That number spiked from 472 in 2011 to 529 in 2017, a 12% increase.

    Historically, men have been more predisposed to “deaths of despair” than women: But a study published in “Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research” found that the largest increase in recent years in these types of deaths occurred among non-hispanic white women.

    Public health crises tied to substance abuse have been plaguing American for decades. So, what is it about our contemporary society that’s causing deaths to skyrocket?

    There’s some food for thought.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 21:15

  • It Was Rod: DOJ Court Filing Reveals Rosenstein Behind Strzok-Page Text Dumps
    It Was Rod: DOJ Court Filing Reveals Rosenstein Behind Strzok-Page Text Dumps

    Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein authorized the release to the media of text messages between ‘FBI lovebirds’ Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, many of which revealed deep animus towards then-candidate Donald Trump while they were investigating him during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to Politico.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a Friday night court filing submitted shortly before midnight, Rosenstein says he made the decision to protect Strzok and Page from the damaging effects of lawmakers and others releasing the texts for use as political ammunition.

    In the messages, Strzok and Page regularly disparaged Trump and appeared to seek to reassure each other he could not be elected. Both called Trump an “idiot” and said Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton deserved to win.

    The texts also included murky discussions of an “insurance policy” to guard against Trump’s election. Trump backers have interpreted the reference as a plan to use the then-ongoing investigation into ties between Trump advisers and Russia as way to prevent him from taking office or undermine his presidency, but Strzok and Page have denied any such intent. –Politico

    Lisa Page – who sued the DOJ and FBI in December over the release, appears to be pissed.

    Strzok has separately sued the agencies as well – for which Rosenstein’s admission was submitted as part of the government’s defense. The former DAG says that public disclosure of the texts was inevitable in connection with testimony he was set to give the next day in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

    “With the express understanding that it would not violate the Privacy Act and that the text messages would become public by the next day in any event, I authorized [Justice’s Office of Public Affairs] to disclose to the news media the text messages that were being disclosed to Congressional committees,” wrote Rosenstein.

    In November, the Justice Department asked U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to throw out Strzok’s suit, which challenges both his firing from the FBI and the release of the texts. However, Strzok’s attorneys countered in a court filing last month that one reason to allow the suit to proceed was that Justice Department was being vague about just who made the final call to give the messages.

    Arguing that an air of mystery continued to surround the disclosure, Strzok lawyer Aitan Goelman called “revealing” Justice’s decision to seek dismissal of the suit without identifying the responsible official.

    “An agency cannot avoid Privacy Act liability for a disclosure actually made for an improper purpose by eliciting a sanitized after-the-fact rationale from an official who does not have all of the facts,” Goelman wrote. –Politico

    According to Rosenstein, his aides originally suggested that he should delay sending the texts to Congress until after his testimony in front of the House, however he thought it would be “inappropriate” to do so for that reason. He also said he decided to give them to the media prior to his testimony over concerns that they would be cherrypicked and weaponized.

    “The Department’s Office of Public Affairs … recommended providing the text messages to the media because otherwise, some congressional members and staff were expected to release them intermittently before, during and after the hearing, exacerbating the adverse publicity for Mr. Strzok, Ms. Page and the Department,” wrote Rosenstein. “Providing the most egregious messages in one package would avoid the additional harm of prolonged selective disclosures and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI.”

    See the filing below:


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 20:50

  • "Hard" Of Hearing: PornHub Being Sued By Deaf Man For Lack Of Closed Captioning
    “Hard” Of Hearing: PornHub Being Sued By Deaf Man For Lack Of Closed Captioning

    Visuals are sometimes difficult to enjoy without context.

    At least, that’s the argument being made by Yaroslav Suris, who is suing the popular online porn site claiming that its lack of closed captioning for the deaf and hearing-impaired is discriminatory. 

    Suris is claiming that the website violates his rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act, according to TMZ, who first broke the story. 

    He claims that the deaf and hearing impaired can’t understand the audio tracks of videos on the website and claims that some of his favorite titles – with names like “Hot Step Aunt Babysits Disobedient Nephew,” “Sexy Cop Gets Witness to Talk” and “Daddy 4K — Allison comes to Talk About Money to Her Boys’ Naughty Father” – are difficult to follow.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is a man who obviously appreciates artistic integrity of the actors and actresses…

    He also says that he would pay for a Premium subscription to PornHub, but that it is pointless to shell out the money for it without closed captioning. Because we all know there isn’t enough free porn out there – and there definitely isn’t enough free porn with closed captioning. 

    He is suing PornHub not only to request closed captioning, but also for damages.

    PornHub, on the other hand (no pun intended), actually does have some closed captions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    PornHub’s VP, Corey Price responded by saying: 

    “We understand that Yaroslav Suris is suing Pornhub for claiming we’ve denied the deaf and hearing impaired access to our videos. While we do not generally comment on active lawsuits, we’d like to take this opportunity to point out that we do have a closed captions category.”

    We hope Yarslav doesn’t spend too much of his spare time on the site, however. He could wind up deaf and blind. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 20:25

  • Why Laws Against Hate Speech Are Dangerous
    Why Laws Against Hate Speech Are Dangerous

    Authored by Fjordman via The Gatestone Institute,

    In November 2019, Germans celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany 30 years earlier. That same month, Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a speech to the German federal parliament (Bundestag), advocated more restrictions on free speech for all Germans. She warned that free speech has limits:

    “Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise, our society will no longer be the free society that it was.”

    Merkel received great applause.

    Critics, however, would claim that curtailing freedom in order to protect freedom sounds a bit Orwellian. One of the first acts of any tyrant or repressive regime is usually to abolish freedom of speech. Merkel should know this: she lived under a repressive regime — in the communist dictatorship of East Germany, where she studied at Karl Marx University.

    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, specifically speech critical of the government, and prohibits the state from limiting free speech. The First Amendment was placed first in the Bill of Rights because the American Founding Fathers realized that freedom of speech is fundamental to a free society. US President George Washington said:

    “For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences… reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

    Without freedom of speech, you cannot truly be free. Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What exactly is “hate speech,” and who gets to define it? Those who love justice usually also hate injustice. But what is justice? Social justice? Economic justice? Ecological justice? Religious fundamentalist justice? Climate justice?

    Hate may be a negative emotion, but you cannot ban emotions. Envy and jealousy are also widely considered negative feelings. Yet we do not ban them. Envy of people who are wealthier than you is arguably a component of Socialist and Marxist political parties everywhere.

    The concept of a “hate crime” is also flawed. If you rob, assault or murder people, that is equally injurious regardless of the motivation of the assailant or of who the victim is. We should not have different penalties depending upon whether the victim is a gay black man, a straight white man, a Muslim woman or a Christian nun, or we will end up with a kind of a legal caste system.

    Although the legal system should not be based on feelings or emotions, we see an increasing tendency toward this subjectivity. There is a tendency to censor certain viewpoints because they might “offend” others. The problem is, it is not the inoffensive things that need protecting; it is only the offensive things that do. When, in the US, the National Socialist Party of America wanted to march though Skokie, Illinois, home to many Holocaust survivors, the Supreme Court decided that the Nazis’ right of free speech overrode suppressing the marchers. According to the Bill of Rights Institute:

    “In these cases, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects individuals’ rights to express their views, even if those views are considered extremely offensive by most people…

    “American writer Noam Chomsky said ‘If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.’ Individuals who express unpopular opinions are protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment prevents majorities from silencing views with which they do not agree—even views that the majority of people find offensive to their very core. “

    Possibly many things people say will be considered offensive to somebody, somewhere. In 1600, Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake as a heretic for saying that the universe has no center, and stars are suns, surrounded by planets and moons. The findings of Charles Darwin were challenged by the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925, when a high-school teacher in Tennessee, John T. Scopes, was charged with violating state law by teaching the theory of human evolution.

    Just a few years ago, it was uncontroversial to state that there are only two biological sexes. After all, this is a fact that would seem pretty straightforward. Yet recently, even this simple statement has become explosive. When the tennis champion Martina Navratilova questioned the fairness of having transgender men compete in sports again women, but was eventually driven to “apologize.”

    In the UK, a physician, David Mackereth, recently lost his government job as a medical assessor after more than three decades for refusing to renounce his view that gender is determined at birth.

    People who claim to combat “hate” often seem to be quite full of hate themselves. Some Americans claim that US President Donald J. Trump is a racist, yet themselves express open hatred toward Trump, and those who vote for him. They do not object to hating. They just seem to believe that their hate is the only legitimate one.

    In 2013, the American scholar Robert Spencer was banned by British authorities from entering the UK. Spencer the author of many books about Islam and runs the website Jihad Watch.

    The Koran sura 9:5 has verse stating:

    “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

    The exact translation of this verse can be debated, but the Arabic verb qatala generally means to kill, slay or murder somebody. How come it is all right to publish the original source, prescribing murder, but that it is “hate speech” to point out that quote?

    Robert Spencer and others have observed, for instance, that verse 9:5 and other intolerant verses in the Koran have been quoted repeatedly by militant Muslims to justify jihad attacks and violence (for instance herehere and here). Although other religious books also contain violence, as the scholar Bruce Bawer points out:

    “Sometimes, when one points out these rules, people will respond: ‘Well, the Bible says such-and-such.’ The point is not that these things are written in Islamic scripture, but that people still live by them.”

    Muslims in Britain and other Western nations are free to spread teachings that are hateful towards non-Muslims. Yet because non-Muslims such as Robert Spencer pointed out that some teachings are hateful and have inspired actual atrocities, UK authorities banned Spencer for spreading “hate.”

    One sees, then, that restrictions against “hate speech” often do not really ban hate speech; instead they may actually be protecting certain forms of hate speech against legitimate inquiry.

    Laws against “hate speech” and “racism” always lead to political censorship, because the definition of what constitutes “hate” is always influenced by politics and ideology. Laws against hate speech or racism should therefore be removed. No person has the right “not to be offended.” Freedom of speech means saying and hearing things with which you may disagree. What remains important is to be able to say and hear them.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 20:00

  • Haftar Blocks All Libyan Oil Exports Day Before Berlin Peace Conference
    Haftar Blocks All Libyan Oil Exports Day Before Berlin Peace Conference

    Given Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar has over the past two years captured the majority of the oil and gas rich country’s energy producing regions, he’s now playing his biggest card yet to leverage international peace talks in his favor amid a final push for his Libyan National Army (LNA) forces to take Tripoli. 

    Bloomberg reports Saturday that the Benghazi-based ‘rebel’ general has now “blocked oil exports at ports under his control, slashing output by more than half and posing a potential setback for an international conference on Sunday that aims to broker an end to a civil war in the OPEC nation.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image source: AP via Oilandgaspeople.com

    The major talks Sunday are due to be held in Berlin, and a who’s who of external backers of each side of the conflict will be in attendance, including Putin, Erdogan, France’s Macron, and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as well as the Italian prime minister and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

    The Berlin conference comes after a failed deal to establish a ceasefire in Moscow earlier in the week, when Haftar left the city after the head of the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli, Fayez al-Sarraj, actually signed the agreement. Haftar also reportedly secretly scuttled to different Mediterranean capitals, including Athens, in a bid to gain recognition as legitimate leader on the ground.

    Haftar’s drastic move to block oil exports is likely aimed at torpedoing the Berlin meeting before it even starts, given he’s proven intransigent in the face of international pressure for him to halt the ongoing Tripoli offensive — even during the talks hosted by one of his key political backers Vladimir Putin. 

    Libya’s National Oil Corp. (NOC) has now declared Force Majeure, per Bloomberg:

    As a result of the blockage of ports in the central and eastern parts of the country, oil output will fall by about 800,000 barrels a day, costing $55 million daily, the National Oil Corp. said in a statement on Saturday. The NOC declared Force Majeure, which can allow Libya, which holds Africa’s largest-proven oil reserves, to legally suspend delivery contracts.

    The stoppage also has military implications on the ground, given the GNA’s national army relies on the country’s oil revenue to purchase weapons via Tripoli’s central bank. The NOC has placed sole blame on Haftar for the shutdown, while the LNA has claimed to be listening to the demands of “the people”. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    GNA’s Fayez Al-Sarraj (left) and Gen. Khalifa Haftar, via the AFP.

    Speaking to Bloomberg, European Council on Foreign Relations top official Arturo Varvelli acknowledged the action as bold ploy by Haftar to control Berlin discussions before they commence. “It could be counterproductive as it could make the Europeans, who are the largest consumers of Libyan oil, very upset,” he said.

    And S&P Global Platts warns the country’s oil sector could enter a “tailspin”

    Libya’s oil sector could go into a tailspin with two-thirds of its total crude oil production of around 1.20 million b/d at risk after its key oil ports were suspended Saturday by the Libyan National Army…

    There’s huge potential for fireworks at the conference itself, given international heavyweights on either side of the conflict will be represented.

    Turkey’s Erdogan has recently ordered troops to prop up the Tripoli government, not to mention Turkish drones and military hardware which have for months already been active in defense of the capital against pro-Haftar forces. 

    Oil exports make up over 90% of Libya’s national revenue and as the below 2019 Stratfor map demonstrates, Haftar has long held the majority of the nation’s oil fields.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Russia, for its part, is believed to have hundreds of mercenaries from the Wagner Group embedded within Haftar’s forces. And complicating matters in the emerging proxy war, Egypt, the Saudis, and UAE (and most recently the Trump White House, apparently) also back Haftar, while Italy, Turkey, and other UN member nations back the GNA’s Sarraj. 

    Meanwhile, Haftar has vowed repeatedly to not give up until he has control of the Libyan capital, despite fighting for months staying at a relative stalemate. So the Berlin conference outcome is not looking good before it even starts. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 19:35

  • 944 Trillion Reasons Why The Fed Is Quietly Bailing Out Hedge Funds
    944 Trillion Reasons Why The Fed Is Quietly Bailing Out Hedge Funds

    On Friday, Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari, who just two months earlier made a stunning proposal when he said that it was time for the Fed to pick up where the USSR left off and start redistributing wealth (at least Kashkari chose the proper entity: since the Fed has launched central planning across US capital markets, it would also be proper in the banana republic that the US has become, that the same Fed also decides who gets how much and the entire democracy/free enterprise/free market farce be skipped altogether) issued a challenge to “QE conspiracists” which apparently now also includes his FOMC colleague (and former Goldman Sachs co-worker), Robert Kaplan, in which he said “QE conspiracists can say this is all about balance sheet growth. Someone explain how swapping one short term risk free instrument (reserves) for another short term risk free instrument (t-bills) leads to equity repricing. I don’t see it.

    To the delight of Kashkari, who this year gets to vote and decide the future of US monetary policy yet is completely unaware of how the plumbing underneath US capital markets actually works, we did so for his benefit on Friday, although we certainly did not have to: after all, the “central banks’ central bank”, the Bank for International Settlements, did a far better job than we ever could in its December 8 report, “September stress in dollar repo markets: passing or structural?”, which explained not just why the September repo disaster took place on the supply side (i.e., the sudden, JPMorgan-mediated liquidity shortage at the “top 4” commercial banks which prevented them from lending into the repo market)…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … but also on the demand side, which as Claudo Borio, head of the monetary and economic department at the BIS, explained was the result “high demand for secured (repo) funding from non-bank financial institutions, such as hedge funds heavily engaged in leveraging up relative value trades.

    Incidentally, we harbor a slight suspicion that Kashkari, who also admitted to “finding amusement in needling critics calling them conspiracists or goldbugs” (which is a delightfully ironic statement for a person responsible for the biggest asset bubble in history, and one which we are confident in 1-2 years time he would love to retract), was being disingenuous and knows exactly how the Fed is impacting markets, because in what was perhaps the most important news last week which flew under the radar, the WSJ reported that the Fed was considering lending cash directly to – i.e., bailing out – hedge funds, or as we put it, “Fed officials are considering a new tool to ease repo market stress: namely bypassing the existing system entirely, and lending cash directly to smaller banks, securities dealers and hedge funds through the repo market’s clearinghouse, the Fixed Income Clearing Corp., or FICC.

    And so we once again get to the real issue at hand, namely the bailout of those hedge funds which even the BIS said were on the verge of failure had the repo market not been unfrozen – and which the Fed was all too aware of – and had the massive leverage that some hedge funds operate under collapsed, forcing an unprecedented liquidation cascade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Incidentally, it is the repo-utilizing hedge funds that is the transmission mechanism of the Fed’s monetary policy, and the source of so much Neel Kashkari confusion. Luckily for Neel, and everyone else still confused, the BIS explained that too:

    Shifts in repo borrowing and lending by non-bank participants may have also played a role in the repo rate spike. Market commentary suggests that, in preceding quarters, leveraged players (eg hedge funds) were increasing their demand for Treasury repos to fund arbitrage trades between cash bonds and derivatives.

    And there you have it: when properly funded, repos issued by commercial banks are critical in preserving and boosting risk prices, by way of levered hedge fund pair trades; indeed as the FT noted in December, “one increasingly popular hedge fund strategy involves buying US Treasuries while selling equivalent derivatives contracts, such as interest rate futures, and pocketing the arb, or difference in price between the two.”

    While on its own this trade is not very profitable, given the close relationship in price between the two sides of the trade. But as LTCM knows too well, that’s what leverage is for. Lots and lots and lots of leverage. And when the repo market seized in September, the risk was that all this leverage would be pulled, forcing an unprecedented liquidation wave among the massively levered hedge fund world.

    Hence the need for an emergency liquidity intervention by the Fed.

    But as the WSJ noted, it’s not just about preserving a handful of hedge funds – fundamentally, the very foundation of the US financial system was suddenly at risk, and with the Fed suddenly targeting liquidity injections into claringhouses, it immediately became apparent what the weakest link was: Clearinghouses themselves.

    This is hardly the first time we have discussed clearinghouses as the weakest link in the US financial system. As a reminder, the “hail mary” thesis of the uber bearish CIO of Horseman Global, Russel Clark (who in 2019 was down a record 35%) is that clearinghouses will collapse as liquidity is drained from the market:

    LCH claim to have done a quadrillion of compression trades or netting in the last year, this is more than twice the notional of all outstanding interest rate derivatives.

    If initial margins rise significantly, the only assets that will see a bid will be cash, US treasuries, JGBs, Bunds, Yen and Swiss Franc. Everything else will likely face selling pressure. If a major clearinghouse should fail due to two counterparties failing, then many centrally cleared hedges will also fail. If this happens, you will not receive the cash from your bearish hedge, as the counterparty has gone bust, and the clearinghouse needs to pay from its own capital or even get be recapitalised itself.

    For those confused, here is another quick primer on clearinghouses from Horseman’s November letter to clients:

    Clearinghouses have become the center of the financial system, but they do not bear the cost of any mistakes they make in pricing risks. This is borne by other clearinghouse members. But what the BIS note and the note issued by the banks and other users of clearinghouses makes clear is that the market has become very directional, with banks supplying liquidity to the repo market, while leveraged funds are taking liquidity (until 2017 banks were taking liquidity from the system). As the near bankruptcy of a clearinghouse highlighted last year, it is other members that bear the risk when things go wrong, and hence big US banks have acted rationally in looking to reduce liquidity to the repo market, which of course forced the Federal Reserve to act.

    And since things are getting a bit fuzzy, let’s summarize here is what we know:

    1. The repo crisis was the result of a liquidity shortfall at the “Top 4” banks, precipitated by JPMorgan’s drain of over $100BN in repo market liquidity (a wise move, which eventually forced the Fed to launch QE4, and helped JPM report its most profitable year on record)
    2. The Fed addressed the “supply side” of the Sept repo crisis by injecting over $400BN in liquidity to replenish bank reserve levels, first via repo and then via T-Bill POMO, i.e., QE4.
    3. The Fed has yet to address the “demand side” of the Sept repo crisis, namely the market transmission mechanism which is intermediated by hedge funds. And it is here that, as the WSJ reported, the Fed is currently contemplating providing liquidity directly to hedge funds to prevent a systemic collapse during the next repo crisis, whenever it may strike.

    But going back to the clearinghouse issue, how are these linked to the potential failure of a handful of (massive) hedge funds? Well, we have an explanation for that too, and it once again comes from Horseman’s Russell Clark, who in his latest letter to the few clients he has left (which is a damn shame, because despite his dismal performance in 2019, one can argue that Clark is one of the best investors of his generation, yet one who will soon be out of a job due to endless central bank intervention), writes that “since 2016, its has become much harder to short. There are two reasons. One is negative interest rates have made almost any amount of investment risk justifiable, as owning a safe asset will cost you in real terms. The second is that the malinvestment has moved from bad investment in real assets, into bad investment in financial structures that actually push up markets before crashing them.”

    How is that relevant to clearinghouses… thus hedge funds… thus repo… thus liquidity… thus the Fed…. thus QE4? Clark explains:

    In 2019 there were many signs that the Japanese were perhaps beginning to step away from US debt markets, which made me very bearish. Yet US corporate debt continued to trade very well, which ultimately was the main support for US markets. As I looked more and more closely at clearinghouses, I realised the way they priced risk, and the provided leverage through compression, meant they were the grease that kept the US debt markets operating, and in fact kept spreads much tighter than they should be.

    This brings us to the punchline, namely the reason why clearinghouses have emerged as the weakest link in the Frankenstein monster of a market that the Fed has created over the past decade, and why the Fed is, quietly, preparing to backstop hedge funds and clearinghouses themselves during the next crisis. Or rather 944 trillion reasons. Here is Clark’s conclusion:

    Regulators, clearinghouses and central banks have published notes saying that clearinghouses are safe and the problems in the Swedish exchange in 2018 were due to one rogue trader. But when the biggest clients of the clearinghouses, banks, say there is a problem, then I suspect they are right. I spent the Christmas period trying to prove that compression is dangerous, and the best nugget I could come from was from the biggest interest rate clearinghouse in the world, LCH.

    In a pamphlet on their website, pushing the benefits of “Compression with Swap Clear”, in the 12 months to October 2019, LCH did a record 944 trillion USD (11x world GDP) of compression. LCH also provide an estimate of the amount of capital this saved members (i.e. banks) under Basel III, a princely 37 million USD. To restate, USD 944 trillion of compression, yielded the banks USD 37 million of regulatory capital saving.

    Which leads to the 944 trillion dollar question asked by the Horseman CIO: “If the banks are not benefitting, who is?”

    His answer:

    “Leverage funds with huge interest rate derivative positions. And who is on the hook if they blow up? The big banks who are on the other side of the trade, as they would be forced to recapitalise the clearinghouses.

    In other words, if enough liquidity is drained, mutual assured destruction between funds and banks will almost instantly follow. And since banks are now aware of the risk and are trying to reduce their exposure, it is very hard if not impossible to see how this can be unwound “without triggering all the other bad financial structures and malinvestment that QE has produced.”

    It also explains why the Fed had to get involved, if under the guise of saving the repo market, when in reality the Fed was once again bailing out the banks and levered funds that are facing trillions of dollars in losses should one clearinghouse go under, as the cascade of resulting events would lead to a domino effect where one counterparty after another failed, and one clearinghouse after another has to be bailed out, initially by banks, and ultimately by the Fed.

    And there you have it: while the September repo crisis was fundamentally represented by the Fed as one of insufficient reserves, and the resultant QE4 was painted by Powell merely as an exercise in “reserve management” the real reason why the Fed stepped in so decisively was to prevent a cascading sequence of hedge fund failures that would have not only sent the market crashing as funds were forced to liquidate all positions once leverage as high as 10x (see chart above) was yanked, but would culminate in the failure of one or more clearinghouses. Which is also why now that the Fed has stepped in, and backstopped this weakest link, stocks keep hitting new all time highs.

    As for Mr Kashkari’s childish “needling of critics”, if after reading the above he still doesn’t understand what is going on, we have a suggestion: announce on Monday the Fed will no longer inject $100 billion in liquidity each month via repo and POMO, and see what happens to the stock market. After all, the Fed’s actions – or in this case the lack thereof – do not lead to “equity repricing”, right?


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 19:19

  • Mystery Chinese Virus Has Likely Infected Over 1,700 As It Sweeps Across China And Japan
    Mystery Chinese Virus Has Likely Infected Over 1,700 As It Sweeps Across China And Japan

    While there have been more than 60 confirmed cases of a new mystery virus emerging from Wuhan, China, UK experts estimate that closer to 1,700 have been sickened with the SARS-like pneumonia, according to the BBC. Meanwhile, SCMP reports three suspected cases in Shenzhen, Shanghai.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “I am substantially more concerned than I was a week ago,” disease specialist Prof Neil Ferguson told the outlet.

    The work was conducted by the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis at Imperial College London, which advises bodies including the UK government and the World Health Organization (WHO). –BBC

    The estimate was calculated by the Imperial College of London based on the following assumptions: 

    • Wuhan International Airport has a catchment population of 19 million individuals [1].
    • There is a mean 10-day delay between infection and detection, comprising a 5-6 day incubation period [8,9]  and a 4-5 day delay from symptom onset to detection/hospitalisation of a case (the cases detected in Thailand and Japan were hospitalised 3 and 7 days after onset, respectively) [4,10].
    • Total volume of international travel from Wuhan over the last two months has been 3,301 passengers per day. This estimate is derived from the 3,418 foreign passengers per day in the top 20 country destinations based on 2018 IATA data [11], and uses 2016 IATA data held by Imperial College to correct for the travel surge at Chinese New Year present in the latter data (which has not happened yet this year) and for travel to countries outside the top 20 destination list.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the report, “It is likely that the Wuhan outbreak of a novel coronavirus has caused substantially more cases of moderate or severe respiratory illness than currently reported. The estimates presented here suggest surveillance should be expanded to include all hospitalised cases of pneumonia or severe respiratory disease in the Wuhan area and other well-connected Chinese cities. This analysis does not directly address transmission routes, but past experience with SARS and MERS-CoV outbreaks of similar scale suggests currently self-sustaining human-to-human transmission should not be ruled out.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To that end, airports in Singapore and Hong Kong have been screening passengers from Wuhan, while three US airports announced similar measures on Friday at three major airports; San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. While most of the cases have occurred in China, there has been at least one reported in Japan, after a Chinese national traveled from Wuhan to his home in Kanagawa Prefecture.

    About the virus:

    The BBC also reports that this virus is just one of six Coronaviruses known to infect people.

    At the mild end they cause the common cold, but severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) is a coronavirus that killed 774 of the 8,098 people infected in an outbreak that started in China in 2002.

    Analysis of the genetic code of the new virus shows it is more closely related to Sars than any other human coronavirus. –BBC

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to Ferguson, it’s “too early to be alarmist” over the virus, but that “people should be considering the possibility of substantial human-to-human transmission more seriously than they have so far,” adding “It would be unlikely in my mind, given what we know about coronaviruses, to have animal exposure, be the principal cause of such a number of human infections.”

    Understanding how a novel virus is spreading is a crucial part of assessing its threat.

    The WHO’s China office said the analysis was helpful and would help officials plan the response to the outbreak.

    “Much remains to be understood about the new coronavirus,” it said. “Not enough is known to draw definitive conclusions about how it is transmitted, the clinical features of the disease, the extent to which it has spread, or its source, which remains unknown.” –BBC

    So far just two deaths have been reported.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 18:45

  • Watch: The Fed's Evil Juggernaut
    Watch: The Fed’s Evil Juggernaut

    Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

    Juggernaut: (n) massive inexorable force, campaign, movement, or object that crushes whatever is in its path

    The US Federal Reserve is once again force-feeding liquidity into the system. At its fastest rate ever.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The result? Record high stock prices whose valuations defy all logic.

    What’s wrong with that? Shouldn’t we just enjoy the party and be grateful for our rising 401ks?

    What’s wrong is that the Fed’s actions are dooming us. Their poisonous cocktail of endless cheap money and rock-bottom interest rates is hastening a terminal breakdown of the economy, while deliberately enriching a tiny cadre of elites to the ruin of everyone else.

    Though most remain blind to this, Fed policy (and the similar ones pursued by the other major world central banks) is directly responsible for, or a major contributor to, many of the biggest challenges society is facing.

    Tens of millions of Boomers who can’t afford to retire. Tens of millions of Millennials who can’t afford to purchase a home. History’s largest wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else. Relentless increases in the cost of living while real wages remain stagnant. Depletion and degradation of our key natural resources by zombie companies run without profits. We can thank the Fed for all of these ills, plus many more.

    All we’re offered in return is the fake reassurance that “everything is awesome” because stocks are higher today than they were yesterday. As if that really makes a difference when the top 1% owns 50% of all stocks and the top 10% owns over 90%.

    And when today’s epicly distorted markets reach their breaking point — which may be imminent given the truly manic action recently — not only will the resulting damage be commensurately epic, but it will injure the 99% FAR more than the 1% who benefitted from it.

    Mass layoffs. Bankruptcies. Destroyed retirement portfolios and pensions. State and city budget crises. Higher taxes. More fees. Cancelled social services. Hollowed-out communities.

    The Fed’s deliberate policy of privatized gains for the elite and socialized losses for the masses ensures that Joe Sixpack is going to take it in the shorts while Reginald Caviar-Maybach will still receive his record bonus from Goldman Sachs.

    Which is why the video below is essential viewing for anyone not currently CEO of a too-big-to-fail bank or too busy counting their $billions.

    We brought together several of the best monetary and macroeconomic minds to explain exactly what is transpiring and what concerned individuals like you should be preparing for.

    Here’s our full 90-minute video WTF: What The Fed?!?, featuring Grant Williams, Mike Maloney, Charles Hugh Smith and Chris Martenson:

    Understanding the nature of what is underway is critical. While the Fed’s liquidity juggernaut rolls on, it will continue to crush equality, opportunity and fairness for the masses. But once it stalls, the systemic crash and societal upheaval that will follow will be even more horrific for those not prepared for it.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 18:20

  • Trump Blasts "Brazen, Unlawful" Coup Attempt After House Files "Framers' Worst Nightmare" Legal Brief
    Trump Blasts “Brazen, Unlawful” Coup Attempt After House Files “Framers’ Worst Nightmare” Legal Brief

    Ahead of Tuesday’s opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial, House Democrats – seven impeachment managers led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff – filed their legal brief today.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The 111-page summons urges the Senate to “eliminate the threat that the President poses to America’s national security” as it lays out the case against President Trump.

    The House legal filing (due by 5pmET) reiterates the findings of the House Intelligence and Judiciary panels, which, after hearing from witnesses and experts, settled on charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

    Additionally, the case that House prosecutors sent to the Senate references new evidence that wasn’t part of the impeachment inquiry, including material from Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, according to Democratic officials familiar with the argument.

    “The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that he is guilty of both. The only remaining question is whether the members of the Senate will accept and carry out the responsibility placed on them by the Framers of our Constitution and their constitutional Oaths,” the brief reads.

    “History will judge each Senator’s willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly, and defend the Constitution.”

    Compiled by the seven Democrats serving as impeachment managers, the brief describes the president’s conduct as “the Framer’s worst nightmare” in arguing that he should be impeached and removed from office.

    “President Trump’s ongoing pattern of misconduct demonstrates that he is an immediate threat to the Nation and the rule of law. It is imperative that the Senate convict and remove him from office now, and permanently bar him from holding federal office,” they write.

    Read the House Democrats full legal brief below:

    President Trump’s legal team outlined the fiery response to its impeachment summons, calling the two articles of impeachment passed by the House last month “a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.”

    The six-page document – which they stressed is different from the brief that is not due until Monday – offers a taste of the rhetoric expected to be deployed by the president’s defenders in the Senate.

    “This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away,” the filing states.

    Trump’s legal team, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, is challenging the impeachment on both procedural and constitutional grounds, claiming Trump has been mistreated by House Democrats and that he did nothing wrong.

    Read the president’s full response to articles of impeachment:

    Notably, at least four of the impeachment managers, including Schiff, are scheduled to appear Sunday on political talk shows.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News this week that he predicts President Donald Trump’s Senate trial will be short and that the president’s best defense is a review of the transcript.

    “The transcript is the single best piece of evidence that the president has,” Gowdy said. “Who brought up Rudy Giuliani’s name? It wasn’t Donald Trump. It was Zelensky. This was the second call, not the first call. If President Trump were really hell-bent on ensuring that Ukraine investigate the Bidens, would he not have brought that up in the first telephone call he had with Zelensky? Why wait till the second?”

    “As far as the timing of this trial is concerned, Trey, they are estimates that it could be quick, it could last as long as six weeks,” Fox News co-host Sandra Smith said. “Where do you fall on that, and what is the length of time mean?”

    “I mean God help us if it lasts six weeks,” Gowdy responded. “The investigation is over, so it’s Schiff’s job to present the case. If he’s going to present the case on the paper with the depositions, it shouldn’t take that long. I don’t need Adam to read the depositions to me; the jury can go read it themselves.”

    “If they open it up to witnesses, and they want Bolton, and then there’s some Republicans that want four or five other witnesses, it could last six weeks,” Gowdy continued. “Sandra, I just have not met anyone whose opinion has changed during the pendency of this investigation. I can’t identify – maybe three open-minded jurors in the U.S. Senate. I just don’t, no matter how long it lasts, I don’t think it’s gonna change anyone’s mind in the Senate or among my fellow citizens. The shorter the better.”

    Fox News co-host Bill Hemmer asked, “Did you want to give us a time frame for that?”

    “I’m saying two weeks,” Gowdy said. “If it goes six weeks, then they’re going to have to make some hard decisions on which witnesses are important enough to hear from and which ones, while they may have relevant evidence, we just don’t – I think in terms of a real trial.”

    “Why would you ever not call a witness if that witness has relevant information?” Gowdy continued. “How do you pick which ones to call and which ones not to? You can never do that in a real trial. So, if we’re going to open this thing up anew to a brand new investigation, then call everybody, and God knows how long that’ll take.”

    “President Trump has done nothing wrong and is confident that this team will defend him, the voters, and our democracy from this baseless, illegitimate impeachment,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement on Friday night.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 17:55

    Tags

  • Browbeaten Target Employee Gets GoFundMe Vacation After Public Shaming By 'Gaping A**hole' Journalist
    Browbeaten Target Employee Gets GoFundMe Vacation After Public Shaming By ‘Gaping A**hole’ Journalist

    A GoFundMe for a browbeaten Target manager has reached more than $18,000 after a notorious internet troll’s temper tantrum over a mispriced toothbrush went viral.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Target Tori and David Leavitt (via Heavy.com)

    Liberal journalist David Leavitt – who the late Anthony Bourdain once called a “gaping asshole” for mocking victims of a terrorist bombing – tried to publicly shame the Target manager, known as “Target Tori” after she refused to sell him a $90 toothbrush which had accidentally been marked at .01c, based on a Massachusetts law (he likely misinterpreted).

    When Tori put her foot down, Leavitt called the cops and threatened to take Target to court.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    After Leavitt’s post went viral, he was caught in a lie trying to defend himself when he claimed to have not been to a dentist in over three years – only for an old tweet to surface in which he bragged about turning off Fox News in the Dentist’s office.

    And while the internet came to Tori’s defense, President Trump’s favorite meme maker – Carpe Donktumset up a GoFundMe to send ‘#TargetTori on a vactation’ which has raised more than $23,000 as of this writing.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsTori was reached, and full control of the GoFundMe has been granted to her.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 17:30

    Tags

  • Facebook Apologizes For Translating Xi Jinping's Name As "Mr Shithole"
    Facebook Apologizes For Translating Xi Jinping’s Name As “Mr Shithole”

    Winnie the shit?

    Facebook said on Saturday it was trying to figure out how the name of China’s president-cum-dictator for life, Xi Jinping, appeared as “Mr Shithole” in posts when translated into English from Burmese, apologizing for any offense caused and saying the problem had been fixed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mr Shithole and Mark Zuckerberg

    The “error” emerged on the second day of Xi Jinping’s visit to the Southeast Asian country, where Xi and state counselor Aung San Suu Kyi signed dozens of agreements covering massive Beijing-backed infrastructure plans. A statement about the visit published on Suu Kyi’s official Facebook page was littered with references to “Mr Shithole” when translated to English, while a headline in local news journal the Irrawaddy appeared as “Dinner honors president shithole”.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It was unclear how long the issue had lasted but Google’s translation function did not show the same error, prompting amused commentary on social media.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In a statement, Facebook said that “we have fixed an issue regarding Burmese to English translations on Facebook and are working to identify the cause to ensure that it doesn’t happen again,”

    This issue is not a reflection of the way our products should work and we sincerely apologize for the offence this has caused,” Facebook added and it had plenty of reasons to be concerned: China is Facebook’s biggest country for revenue after the US and the company is setting up a new engineering team to focus specifically on the lucrative advertising business there, Reuters reported last week.

    “We are aware of an issue regarding Burmese to English translations on Facebook, and we’re doing everything we can to fix this as quickly as possible,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

    “This issue is not a reflection of the way our products should work and we sincerely apologize for the offense this has caused.”

    This is not the first time Facebook has faced problems with translation from Burmese. In 2018 it temporarily removed the function after a Reuters report showed the tool was producing bizarre results. An investigation documented how the company was failing in its efforts to combat vitriolic Burmese language posts about Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims, some 730,000 of whom fled a military crackdown in 2017 that the United Nations has said was conducted with “genocidal intent”.

    It also showed the translation feature was flawed, citing an anti-Rohingya post advocating killing Muslims that was translated into English as “I shouldn’t have a rainbow in Myanmar.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 17:09

  • Trump Suggests He Ordered Soleimani Killed For "Saying Bad Things About Our Country"
    Trump Suggests He Ordered Soleimani Killed For “Saying Bad Things About Our Country”

    Adding more to the ever evolving rationale for the Jan.3 Qassem Soleimani killing which has brought the Middle East to the brink of a new major war, President Trump told Republic donors Friday night that the IRGC Quds force chief was “saying bad things” about the U.S. before his death.  

    High-dollar donors were gathered for a fundraiser at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where Trump offered a play-by-play of sorts surrounding the decision-making behind the admittedly bold and risky move to strike the elite Iranian military leader via drone as he passed through Baghdad’s international airport. Soleimani was “saying bad things about our country” prior to the US taking action, Trump described of his decision

    “How much of this shit do we have to listen to?” Trump was quoted as saying in audio of the event obtained by CNN. “How much are we going to listen to?” The president continued, suggesting that Soleimani’s anti-American invectives were ultimately a convincing enough reason to sway Trump toward issuing the final order. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Daily Beast/Getty

    Trump further admitted the killing “shook up the world” given that from the perspective of Iran and its allies “He was supposed to be invincible”

    However, like with prior official statements surrounding the controversial military operation, which subsequently triggered a move in Iraqi parliament to boot American forces from the country, no specific evidence was offered that Soleimani was an “imminent” threat to US national security in the region. Previously contradictory statements have come out of the administration saying US embassies in the region were under threat of bombing. 

    Describing that the drone strike took out “two for the price of one” in reference to slain Iraqi Shia paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who had been at the airport to greet Soleimani, Trump gave a more detailed accounting than ever before of proceedings in the ‘situation room’ (which had been set up at Mar-a-Lago) that night.

    According to CNN’s summary of the new details recounted in the speech:

    He went on to recount listening to military officials as they watched the strike from “cameras that are miles in the sky.”

    “They’re together sir,” Trump recalled the military officials saying. “Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. ‘2 minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They’re in the car, they’re in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30 seconds. 10, 9, 8 …’ “

    “Then all of a sudden, boom,” he went on. “‘They’re gone, sir. Cutting off.’ “

    “I said, where is this guy?” Trump continued. “That was the last I heard from him.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    During these latest remarks Trump spoke of Soleimani as a “noted terrorist” who “was down on our list” and “was supposed to be in his country” before he landed in Iraq that fateful night. 

    However, during the night of boasting the president predictably avoided the question of what’s next in terms of US relations with its uneasy Middle East ally. Washington now finds itself in the awkward and increasingly precarious situation of being at the center of popular Iraqi anger and wrath, while also wanting to ‘stay the course’ in the country to “curtail Iran”.

    It goes without saying the Soleimani killing has set off a chain of events which are entirely unpredictable and possibly disastrous for Americans in the region, which could lead to a another significant military conflict and quagmire in the region.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 16:30

  • Investors Face "Grave Danger" – Wait 30 Years For Nothing Or Lose 67% Now
    Investors Face “Grave Danger” – Wait 30 Years For Nothing Or Lose 67% Now

    As the market is levitated by central bank liquidity to record high after record high despite stagnant fundamentals, one asset manager is quantifying the mass hypnosis and warns investors are in “grave danger.”

    “Investors should keep in mind that market valuations stand nearly three times the historically run-of-the-mill valuation levels from which stocks have historically generated run-of-the-mill long-term returns,” says John Hussman, president of the Hussman Investment Trust, in his latest note to investors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “In fact, the highest level of valuation ever observed at the end of any market cycle in history was in October 2002, and even that level is less than half of present valuation extremes.”

    To Hussman, this indicates that there’s a wide disconnect between valuations and underlying fundamentals.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “This doesn’t mean that valuations have ‘stopped working,'” he said.

    “It means that speculative psychology plays an important role over shorter segments of the market cycle, and that investors place themselves in grave danger if they assume, at points of extreme confidence, that valuations can be ignored.

    The business media is awash with asset-gatherers and commission-rakers arguing that low interest rates “justify” higher stock market valuations, but as Hussman explains

    “…that’s really equivalent to saying that ‘low prospective returns in the bond market justify low prospective returns in the stock market‘… Emphatically, nothing about that argument changes the fact that elevated stock market valuations imply lower future investment returns. We also have to ask how much of a valuation premium is actually ‘justified’ by low interest rates.”

    Adding that…

    “It’s there that investors have inadvertently created a world of future pain for themselves.”

    So just how much pain?

    “The risks that investors face don’t care whether their investment horizon is 10 years, or 12 years, or 20 years,” he said. “The problem is that at present valuation extremes, passive investors are locking in dismal future return prospects regardless of their investment horizon.”

    And so how do we get back to historically run-of-the-mill valuation norms?

    The answer is simple:

    “Wait nearly 30 years, allowing both the U.S. economy and U.S. corporate revenues to grow at the same rate as the past two decades, while stock prices remain unchanged, with no intervening periods of recession or investor risk-aversion, or alternatively (and far more likely), watch the S&P 500 lose two-thirds of its value over the completion of this market cycle.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Couldn’t happen? Ask the Japanese…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Buy… and wait passively.

    Presently, Hussman estimates that S&P 500 total returns will fall short of Treasury bond returns by about 2.5% annually over the coming 12-year period, which is equivalent to saying that we estimate negative total returns for the S&P 500 itself over that horizon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Future generations, Hussman argues, seeing the collapse of this bubble in hindsight, will marvel that today’s speculative extremes were ever possible; that they were ever invited and embraced by investors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    They will look back on the entire episode, just as we look at the aftermath 1929, and 2000, and 2007, shaking their heads at the utter madness of it all.

    “What QE actually did was to amplify yield-seeking speculation: in the attempt of each successive holder to get rid of their zero-interest hot potatoes, the valuations of stocks and bonds were progressively bid up until everything – all of it – is now priced at levels that promise near-zero future long-term returns. That’s exactly where we are today.”

    Finally, Hussman concludes, one thing is clear: the Federal Reserve seems to have little grasp of the non-linearities involved in managing such a deranged balance sheet.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 16:00

  • US Military Jams GPS Across East Coast As FBI Seizes Night-Vision Devices
    US Military Jams GPS Across East Coast As FBI Seizes Night-Vision Devices

    Authored by Mike Adams via NaturalNews.com,

    In case you didn’t fully realize that something big is about to take place in America, file these two facts:

    #1: The U.S. military, Carrier Strike Group Four (CSG4), is jamming GPS signals from Jan 16th – 24th

    …which may overlap the planned deep state false flag event in Richmond, Virginia. Richmond is just at the margins of the range of the GPS jamming exercise map released by the military (see below). The epicenter of the so-called “exercise” is off the coast of Georgia. The official FAA announcement claims no jamming will take place on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday next week, but we don’t trust the FAA, so your mileage may vary. Remember, too, that 90% of the American population below the age of 30 has never read a paper map and can’t use a compass.

    The GPS jamming exercise continues through Jan. 24th and effects South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Alabama and all of Florida. The AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) has posted details of the warning here.

    The FAA has also issued a flight advisory warning aircraft pilots that GPS will fail for “several hours each day” during this military jamming exercise. See:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Map of the Carrier Strike Group Four GPS testing

    Here are the areas that will be impacted:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Note that this is the U.S. military testing GPS jamming capabilities in anticipation of an event that would require such jamming (obviously). Consider the convergence of events now shaping up:

    • The impeachment trial of President Trump by the U.S. Senate, presided over by the treasonous sellout SCOTUS Justice Roberts, who already sold out America to Obama under the wildly unconstitutional “Obamacare” decision years ago.

    • The Jan. 20th “Lobby Day” event in Richmond, Virginia, where deep state operatives are absolutely trying to put together a false flag event to cause violence and blame gun owners.

    • The Mysterious drone flights over Colorado, Oklahoma and Nebraska, recently followed up by an emergency meeting with the Oklahoma legislature on a military base, where they were briefed about something “horrific” and “life altering.”

    • The FBI’s sudden attempts to confiscate high-end night vision tubes from distributors, indicating an emergency need for night vision capabilities in an agency led by a treasonous traitor (Chris Wray) and that has a long history of planning and carrying out terrorism plots across America, according to the New York Times and the Kansas City Star.

    #2: FBI invokes “eminent domain” to seize high-end night vision tubes

    The FBI is now claiming “eminent domain” to essentially seize high-end night vision tubes (that power night vision goggles) from distributors in the United States. This indicates the FBI has an emergency effort under way to acquire large numbers of night vision devices in anticipation of some urgent event which will take place at night (possibly another FBI false flag operation like Oklahoma City or the 1993 attempted World Trade Center bombing which was entirely masterminded by the FBI).

    As Dave Hodges is reporting from The Commonsense Show, Bob Griswold from ReadyMadeResources.com relates a shocking event where he had already locked in the purchase of 70 night vision tubes from his distributor, and had those tubes invoiced and committed. Within hours, the FBI claimed eminent domain over the tubes, effectively “seizing” them from Ready Made Resources before they could even be shipped.

    We reviewed a letter written to RMR by their distributor, confirming that the government preempted the order to RMR and claimed they had ownership over the gear because they were the government.

    An hour ago, I spoke with Griswold on the phone to confirm the situation, and he told me he thought there were, “No more than 200 high-end night vision devices remaining in the entire country.” (This excludes the crappy gen 1 and gen 2 night vision devices, which nobody wants anyway.)

    I’m told that inventory units are flying off the shelves and will be gone everywhere in the next 1-2 business days. Yes, there is a run on night vision in America, happening right now.

    Here’s the relevant question: What is the FBI planning that would require hundreds of night vision devices?

    Answer: Probably another bombing, mass shooting, mass casualty event or some other terrorism flashpoint that the FBI is famous for causing. Just ask the church members of Waco, Texas… or not, since they’re all dead, thanks to the FBI and ATF.

    Earlier this week, Alex Jones declared on his broadcast that the deep state was going to “attempt to assassinate Trump next week.” Could this military exercise, and the FBI night vision devices, and the drones scanning the Midwest all be related?

    Most likely, yes.

    Listen to my urgent false flag warning podcast which covers the possibility of deliberate violence being staged for Monday, Jan. 20th, in Richmond, Virginia:


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 01/18/2020 – 15:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 18th January 2020

  • Escobar Exposes America's Existential Battle To Stop Eurasian Integration
    Escobar Exposes America’s Existential Battle To Stop Eurasian Integration

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    Coming decade could see the US take on Russia, China and Iran over the New Silk Road connection

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Iranian seamen salute the Russian Navy frigate Yaroslav Mudry while moored at Chabahar on the Gulf of Oman during Iran-Russia-China joint naval drills. The photo was provided by the Iranian Army office on December 27, 2019. Photo: AFP / HO / Iranian Army office

    The Raging Twenties started with a bang with the targeted assassination of Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani.

    Yet a bigger bang awaits us throughout the decade: the myriad declinations of the New Great Game in Eurasia, which pits the US against Russia, China and Iran, the three major nodes of Eurasia integration.

    Every game-changing act in geopolitics and geoeconomics in the coming decade will have to be analyzed in connection to this epic clash.

    The Deep State and crucial sectors of the US ruling class are absolutely terrified that China is already outpacing the “indispensable nation” economically and that Russia has outpaced it militarilyThe Pentagon officially designates the three Eurasian nodes as “threats.”

    Hybrid War techniques – carrying inbuilt 24/7 demonization – will proliferate with the aim of containing China’s “threat,” Russian “aggression” and Iran’s “sponsorship of terrorism.” The myth of the “free market” will continue to drown under the imposition of a barrage of illegal sanctions, euphemistically defined as new trade “rules.”

    Yet that will be hardly enough to derail the Russia-China strategic partnership. To unlock the deeper meaning of this partnership, we need to understand that Beijing defines it as rolling towards a “new era.” That implies strategic long-term planning – with the key date being 2049, the centennial of New China.

    The horizon for the multiple projects of the Belt and Road Initiative – as in the China-driven New Silk Roads – is indeed the 2040s, when Beijing expects to have fully woven a new, multipolar paradigm of sovereign nations/partners across Eurasia and beyond, all connected by an interlocking maze of belts and roads.

    The Russian project – Greater Eurasia – somewhat mirrors Belt & Road and will be integrated with it. Belt & Road, the Eurasia Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank are all converging towards the same vision.

    Realpolitik

    So this “new era”, as defined by the Chinese, relies heavily on close Russia-China coordination, in every sector. Made in China 2025 is encompassing a series of techno/scientific breakthroughs. At the same time, Russia has established itself as an unparalleled technological resource for weapons and systems that the Chinese still cannot match.

    At the latest BRICS summit in Brasilia, President Xi Jinping told Vladimir Putin that “the current international situation with rising instability and uncertainty urge China and Russia to establish closer strategic coordination.” Putin’s response: “Under the current situation, the two sides should continue to maintain close strategic communication.”

    Russia is showing China how the West respects realpolitik power in any form, and Beijing is finally starting to use theirs. The result is that after five centuries of Western domination – which, incidentally, led to the decline of the Ancient Silk Roads – the Heartland is back, with a bang, asserting its preeminence.

    On a personal note, my travels these past two years, from West Asia to Central Asia, and my conversations these past two months with analysts in Nur-Sultan, Moscow and Italy, have allowed me to get deeper into the intricacies of what sharp minds define as the Double Helix. We are all aware of the immense challenges ahead – while barely managing to track the stunning re-emergence of the Heartland in real-time.

    In soft power terms, the sterling role of Russian diplomacy will become even more paramount – backed up by a Ministry of Defense led by Sergei Shoigu, a Tuvan from Siberia, and an intel arm that is capable of constructive dialogue with everybody: India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.

    This apparatus does smooth (complex) geopolitical issues over in a manner that still eludes Beijing.

    In parallel, virtually the whole Asia-Pacific – from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean – now takes into full consideration Russia-China as a counter-force to US naval and financial overreach.

    Stakes in Southwest Asia

    The targeted assassination of Soleimani, for all its long-term fallout, is just one move in the Southwest Asia chessboard. What’s ultimately at stake is a macro geoeconomic prize: a land bridge from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean.

    Last summer, an Iran-Iraq-Syria trilateral established that “the goal of negotiations is to activate the Iranian-Iraqi-Syria load and transport corridor as part of a wider plan for reviving the Silk Road.”

    There could not be a more strategic connectivity corridor, capable of simultaneously interlinking with the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the Iran-Central Asia-China connection all the way to the Pacific; and projecting Latakia towards the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.

    What’s on the horizon is, in fact, a sub-sect of Belt & Road in Southwest Asia. Iran is a key node of Belt & Road; China will be heavily involved in the rebuilding of Syria; and Beijing-Baghdad signed multiple deals and set up an Iraqi-Chinese Reconstruction Fund (income from 300,000 barrels of oil a day in exchange for Chinese credit for Chinese companies rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure).

    A quick look at the map reveals the “secret” of the US refusing to pack up and leave Iraq, as demanded by the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister: to prevent the emergence of this corridor by any means necessary. Especially when we see that all the roads that China is building across Central Asia – I navigated many of them in November and December – ultimately link China with Iran.

    The final objective: to unite Shanghai to the Eastern Mediterranean – overland, across the Heartland.

    As much as Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea is an essential node of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and part of China’s multi-pronged “escape from Malacca” strategy, India also courted Iran to match Gwadar via the port of Chabahar in the Gulf of Oman.

    So as much as Beijing wants to connect the Arabian Sea with Xinjiang, via the economic corridor, India wants to connect with Afghanistan and Central Asia via Iran.

    Yet India’s investments in Chabahar may come to nothing, with New Delhi still mulling whether to become an active part of the US “Indo-Pacific” strategy, which would imply dropping Tehran.

    The Russia-China-Iran joint naval exercise in late December, starting exactly from Chabahar, was a timely wake-up for New Delhi. India simply cannot afford to ignore Iran and end up losing its key connectivity node, Chabahar.

    The immutable fact: everyone needs and wants Iran connectivity. For obvious reasons, since the Persian empire, this is the privileged hub for all Central Asian trade routes.

    On top of it, Iran for China is a matter of national security. China is heavily invested in Iran’s energy industry. All bilateral trade will be settled in yuan or in a basket of currencies bypassing the US dollar.

    US neocons, meanwhile, still dream of what the Cheney regime was aiming at in the past decade: regime change in Iran leading to the US dominating the Caspian Sea as a springboard to Central Asia, only one step away from Xinjiang and weaponization of anti-China sentiment. It could be seen as a New Silk Road in reverse to disrupt the Chinese vision.

    Battle of the Ages

    A new book, The Impact of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, by Jeremy Garlick of the University of Economics in Prague, carries the merit of admitting that, “making sense” of Belt & Road “is extremely difficult.”

    This is an extremely serious attempt to theorize Belt & Road’s immense complexity – especially considering China’s flexible, syncretic approach to policymaking, quite bewildering for Westerners. To reach his goal, Garlick gets into Tang Shiping’s social evolution paradigm, delves into neo-Gramscian hegemony, and dissects the concept of “offensive mercantilism” – all that as part of an effort in “complex eclecticism.”

    The contrast with the pedestrian Belt & Road demonization narrative emanating from US “analysts” is glaring. The book tackles in detail the multifaceted nature of Belt & Road’s trans-regionalism as an evolving, organic process.

    Imperial policymakers won’t bother to understand how and why Belt & Road is setting a new global paradigm. The NATO summit in London last month offered a few pointers. NATO uncritically adopted three US priorities: even more aggressive policy towards Russia; containment of China (including military surveillance); and militarization of space – a spin-off from the 2002 Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.

    So NATO will be drawn into the “Indo-Pacific” strategy – which means containment of China. And as NATO is the EU’s weaponized arm, that implies the US interfering on how Europe does business with China – at every level.

    Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2005, cuts to the chase: “America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It’s part of who we are. It’s part of what the American Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump is doing right now, as Esper is doing right now … and a host of other members of my political party, the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to lie, cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That’s the truth of it. And that’s the agony of it.”

    Moscow, Beijing and Tehran are fully aware of the stakes. Diplomats and analysts are working on the trend, for the trio, to evolve a concerted effort to protect one another from all forms of hybrid war – sanctions included – launched against each of them.

    For the US, this is indeed an existential battleagainst the whole Eurasia integration process, the New Silk Roads, the Russia-China strategic partnership, those Russian hypersonic weapons mixed with supple diplomacy, the profound disgust and revolt against US policies all across the Global South, the nearly inevitable collapse of the US dollar. What’s certain is that the Empire won’t go quietly into the night. We should all be ready for the battle of the ages.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 23:45

    Tags

  • All The World's Wealth In One Visualization
    All The World’s Wealth In One Visualization

    The financial concept of wealth is broad, and it can take many forms.

    While your wealth is most likely driven by the dollars in your bank account and the value of your stock portfolio and house, Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes that wealth also includes a number of smaller things as well, such as the old furniture in your garage or a painting on the wall.

    From the macro perspective of a country, wealth is even more all-encompassing — it’s not just about the assets held by private households or businesses, but also those owned by the public. What is the value of a new toll bridge, or an aging nuclear power plant?

    Today’s visualization comes to us from HowMuch.net, and it shows all of the world’s wealth in one place, sorted by country.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Total Wealth by Region

    In 2019, total world wealth grew by $9.1 trillion to $360.6 trillion, which amounts to a 2.6% increase over the previous year.

    Here’s how that divvies up between major global regions:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last year, growth in global wealth exceeded that of the population, incrementally increasing wealth per adult to $70,850, a 1.2% bump and an all-time high.

    That said, it’s worth mentioning that Credit Suisse, the authors of the Global Wealth Report 2019 and the source of all this data, notes that the 1.2% increase has not been adjusted for inflation.

    Ranking Countries by Total Wealth

    Which countries are the richest?

    Let’s take a look at the 15 countries that hold the most wealth, according to Credit Suisse:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The 15 wealthiest nations combine for 84.3% of global wealth.

    Leading the pack is the United States, which holds $106.0 trillion of the world’s wealth — equal to a 29.4% share of the global total. Interestingly, the United States economy makes up 23.9% of the size of the world economy in comparison.

    Behind the U.S. is China, the only other country with a double-digit share of global wealth, equal to 17.7% of wealth or $63.8 trillion. As the country continues to build out its middle class, one estimate sees Chinese private wealth increasing by 119.5% over the next decade.

    Impressively, the combined wealth of the U.S. and China is more than the next 13 countries in aggregate — and almost equal to half of the global wealth total.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 23:25

  • The Machines Have Us Trained For Obedience, Paul Craig Roberts
    The Machines Have Us Trained For Obedience, Paul Craig Roberts

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Many decades ago there was an issue of Mad comics that portrayed a future time when everything was done by robots and humans had no function.  One day the system failed. As it had been eons since humans had to do anything, no one knew how to fix the system.  It was Mad comics version of Armageddon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I think that is where the digital revolution is taking us.  

    I remember when appliances and cars responded to humans, and now humans respond to them.  When I grew up cars and home appliances did not go “beep-beep” to remind you of the things you were supposed to do, such as turn off the car lights and take the keys out of the ignition, or turn off the oven and shut the fridge.

    Cars, except for British sports cars, didn’t have seat belts.  Today a car doesn’t stop beeping until you fasten your seat belts.  I hear that soon the cars won’t start until the seat belts are fastened. 

    When the electric company’s outsourced crew failed to connect the neutral line to my house and blew out all appliances, sprinkler system, and garage openers, the electric company replaced everything on a prorated depreciated basis that cost me thousands of dollars.  The worst part of it is that the new appliances boss me around.  

    The old microwave would gently beep three times and stop.  The new one beeps in the most insistent way—open the door you dumb human right this second, immediately—and keeps on insisting until I obey.  The fridge refuses to let me leave it open for cleaning.  The oven insists that I open it immediately, despite my habit of cutting the on time short and leaving whatever it is to cook awhile longer in the hot oven.  

    Here is an explanation of how our electric meters spy on us and pass on the information to interested parties.

    We are being told that the Internet of Things is supposed to be our future, everything is connected, everything is a data source. We are told this will make things more convenient somehow, maybe, but your convenience is not what the Internet of Things is being created for. The Internet of Things is being created in a way that things will be associated with your name. So by looking at what the things are doing, people can watch what you are doing. The Internet of Things will be a living, digital organism where you can be found any time of day, watched, identified, and treated like a voluntary member of this new massive database in the sky. Of course, the Internet of Things is a way for government to assure itself that your behavior is not in any way a threat to anyone in government or, if it is, to enable them to quickly pay you a visit in a forceful way.

    The Internet of Things will produce more data about you than has ever been collected, and the more data they have on you, the more they can take your stuff from you, the more they can do to you.

    read more here…

    Self-driving cars seem to be our future, and robots are taking our jobs away even faster than global corporations offshored them to Asia.  

    What exactly is it that humans are going to be good for?  Nothing it seems.

    Why will we need a driving license when cars drive themselves?  If there is an accident, who is to blame?  The company that made the car?  The company responsible for the software?  What is the point of car insurance when drivers have no responsibility?

    Perhaps it is true that aliens are living among us.  Their language is “beep-beep” and they are using our machines and cars to train us, like Pavlov’s dogs, to respond to their command.

    I can remember when telephones were a convenience before they became a nuisance.  When my land line rings, 95% of the time it is a scam or a telemarketing call, usually robotic.  Now, a man will listen to a sexy female voice, for a time, and a woman will listen to a courtly gentleman’s voice, but until sex doll robots catch on, no one wants to listen to a machine’s voice.  So why the calls?  Why do the telephone companies permit their customers to be scammed and their privacy to be constantly invaded?  How do the phone companies benefit from permitting unethical people to destroy the value of phone service?

    The same thing, I am told, happens to cell phone users.  Recently I finally had to acquire a smart phone, because two people I need to reach only respond to text messages.  They refuse to answer any phone, and email is so invaded by scammers, malware, and marketeers that they do not use email.  They do not even set up the message system on their cell phones. If you try to call them, you get instead of an answer the message that the person you are attempting to call has not set up their message box.  

    So there you have it.  Except for texting, which can’t (yet) be done with a land line, telephones are a nuisance.

    Growing up in Atlanta during the 1940s and into the early 1950s, you could not yourself place a call from your telephone.  When you picked up the receiver, an AT&T operator answered and asked: “number please.”  You gave her the number, and she rang it and connected you if there was an answer.  If you did not know the number, you asked her for information.  If you knew the complete name and perhaps the street address, you were provided with the telephone number.

    In those halcyon days even in a city such as Atlanta, Georgia, there were party lines.  That meant that you shared a telephone line with a neighbor.  If you picked up the receiver to make a call through the operator and heard voices speaking, you knew the line was in use and decency required that you hang up immediately.  As the talking parties heard the click when you picked up the line, if they didn’t hear the click when you hung up they asked you to get off their call.

    In that system, there was no anonymity. Anonymity appeared with dial phones, which allowed you to make your own calls.  From a public telephone, the call was not traceable to you.  This technology was the beginning of our downfall.  

    Dial phones, something youths have seen only in antique shops or old movies are still with us in everyday language. We still say “dial the number” when we are punching buttons.

    Today thanks to technological “progress,” it is much easier to invade privacy.

    Technology is destroying us and the planet.  The pollution from technology is phenomenal. 5G itself may do us in. The destruction of privacy, identity, and freedom by the digital revolution is far beyond George Orwell’s imagination.  Insouciant humans delight in the gadgets that are turning themselves into unfree people who are under control but who themselves control nothing.

    This outcome is easily seen in China where the government uses universal spying to construct for each person a social credit score.  If that person is a dissident, has bad habits, etc., that person gets a score too low to qualify for a loan, university admission, employment, etc., and becomes a non-being.  Here is Soren Korsgaard’s explanation of our future.

    Dystopian classics are back into the spotlight, like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984. They have roared back onto bestseller lists due to whistleblowers’ exposés of government imperialism and totalitarian surveillance of their citizens and foreigners. While the kakistocracy and dystopian surveillance state depicted in 1984 undoubtedly reflected, to some extent, contemporary sociopolitical realities, Orwell extrapolated worst-case scenarios set as warnings for future generations. Nonetheless, his book and implicit warnings seem to have been ignored  as an authoritarian surveillance state is now a reality for most people in first and second world countries. In lieu of accountability for criminal mass-surveillance or these revelations deterring or limiting the prying eyes of government-sponsored spy programs, the establishment in conjunction with their media platforms has used it to their full advantage, almost as if they, themselves, masterminded the leaks.

    Rather than being dismantled, the establishment has openly added advanced surveillance technology to their arsenal in their cataclysmic War on Truth. The mainstream media now parallels Orwell’s Ministry of Truth that broadcasts official explanations, while it effectively neutralizes those who venture outside the parameters of government-approved thinking, which so often equates to threatening their interests.

    While the current Western population control via advanced surveillance technology and social engineering is unparalleled in history, China has nevertheless rolled out a system that sets new standards for government control, the so-called social credit system. In a few decades from now, if the Chinese government succeeds, those who are imprisoned by the social crediting system will have no reference point or conception of freedom; digital tyranny will have become the norm.

    To some extent, Western policymakers have been apprehensive of the Chinese program, but as we shall see, it is nevertheless evident that they themselves are working diligently behind the scenes to implement the same technology that makes the Chinese digital prison possible.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 23:05

  • OK Boomer: Ex-Citi Banker Wins Ageism Case After Boss Calls Him "Old… Set In His Ways"
    OK Boomer: Ex-Citi Banker Wins Ageism Case After Boss Calls Him “Old… Set In His Ways”

    Today in “anytime you fire someone it’s always a case of discrimination” news…

    A former investment banker for Citigroup has won an age discrimination case against the bank after one of his bosses called him “old” and “set in his ways” when he was laid off at age 55.

    A London Tribunal ruled in the ex-banker’s favor this week, finding that Niels Kirk was dismissed unfairly. Kirk had previously been a managing director for energy banking, according to Bloomberg. He had previously been employed at Citigroup for 26 years and wasn’t given any warning about a proposed restructuring. 

    Citi says it will appeal the decision.

    One of his bosses, 54 year old Manolo Falco, denied making the statement but did concede that Kirk “had some very difficult relationships with other senior bankers.” But the judge ruled that Falco’s evidence was “less than convincing”, while Kirk had taken notes in the meeting. 

    The judge presiding said: “The remark appeared to the tribunal to be the kind of throwaway remark Mr. Falco could make.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The size of any award will be determined at a later hearing. Once an employee proves they are a victim of discrimination, a tribunal can order damages that are higher than the cap of about $109,000.

    Kirk’s performance ranking had fallen from a 1 (best) to 3 (good) between 2014 and 2016. His overall compensation also fell from $1.24 million in 2014 to about $600,000 in 2016. 

    Citi claims its “position as set out in the litigation is that Mr. Falco did not make that comment.” Citi also says it’s upset with the decision “particularly given the small age gap between Mr. Kirk and the employee who was ultimately appointed to the role.”

    Kirk’s hired successor wasn’t much younger, at just 51 years old. 

    Citi has 51 managing directors in the company’s EMEA Corporate Banking Department and, as of 2016, three were over the age of 55 and fifteen were 50 and older. 

    “Gray hair is very important in this industry,” Falco told the court last year. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 22:45

    Tags

  • Could ISIS Take Control Over Iraq's Largest Oil Field?
    Could ISIS Take Control Over Iraq’s Largest Oil Field?

    Via OilPrice.com,

    As always, it’s the fear of sanctions that provides the leverage Trump seeks in this cat-and-mouse game with Iran. And this time, the leverage is over Iraq, which would like to see both American and Iranian forces out of the country, for obvious reasons. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is nothing ISIS would love more than this. 

    It would also devastate Iraq because the sanctions threatened would include blocking access to Iraq’s U.S.-based account where all the oil revenues are kept. That threat stands if Iraq moves to kick U.S. forces out of the country.

    That would mean victory for Iran (temporarily). Kicking out Iranian forces is not nearly as simple because the line between state and non-state actors is blurred, at best. 

    A few weeks ago, a U.S. drawdown of military forces in Iraq was already expected, but that now seems unlikely because of the implications. 

    The very military base that Iran attacked following the assassination of General Soleimani was already preparing for a drawdown. 

    In addition to the threat of sanctions on oil money, a U.S. withdrawal would likely open the door for an ISIS return.  

    What Iraqis Want

    There is no consensus on this question, other than the fact that no one wants Iraq to be the proxy battleground between the United States and Iran. 

    It’s a fair point, and Iraqis have had a very difficult time enjoying anything close to sovereignty since the fall of Saddam Hussein. 

    While the Iraqi parliament has voted for U.S. troops to leave, they do not represent a unified voice. The Sunni elements of parliament did not participate in the vote. Neither did the Iraqi Kurds. 

    Shia factions in Iraq are, of course, pushing for a U.S. withdrawal, but the Sunnis and Kurds see this as a dangerous opportunity for pro-Iranian Shia factions to take even more control of the central government in Baghdad.

    They don’t necessarily want a huge U.S. troop presence, but they are more fearful of a complete withdrawal that would leave them over-exposed to pro-Iranian forces. They also aren’t interested in being very loud about this fear.

    In this atmosphere, there is already talk in certain Sunni circles of carving Iraq up to create yet another autonomous region such as that governed by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in the north of Iraq. 

    A Sunni-dominated region would include Anbar, Saladin, Nineveh and Diyala provinces, and would leave all of Basra’s oil to pro-Iranian factions. 

    Already, Sunni leaders are mentioning this as an option, pointing to what they call the “successful” example of the Kurdistan region. 

    The disintegration of Iraq was already progressing prior to the latest showdown between Iran and the United States. The country has been teetering over the edge of anarchy since 2003, when a single party (the Baath Party) was destroyed and Iraq became “governed” by multiple parties with even more fractious factions and a weak military that pro-Iranian Shia militias found easy to influence. 

    But this is far from just a sectarian conflict.  

    The mass protests that were already threatening Iraq’s fragile stability were Shi’ite-versus-Shi’ite. The Sunnis were not involved, nor the Kurds. They were just watching things unfold, warily. 

    One of the biggest mistakes the casual Western news reader makes is accepting a black-and-white narrative when it comes to Iraq. There is a very distinct group of Shi’ites that has a nationalist bent and is militantly against Iranian influence in an independent Iraq. This was a genuine uprising against highly corrupt and ineffective state institutions. 

    Then there is a second group of pro-Iranian Shi’ites who have been brutally putting down the popular uprising. This group exists in order to maintain Iran’s influence.

    The problem now, for the U.S., is that the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran on Iraqi soil is more likely to bring these two groups together than it is to pull them further apart, which would have been a real threat to Iranian influence in Iraq. 

    Indeed, both Shia groups are calling for a U.S. withdrawal. 

    In this territory, you have to pick your evil, and for some time it’s been pro-Iranian forces and pro-U.S. forces against ISIS. 

    That’s not going to happen anymore, to the great delight of the Islamic State. 

    In 2011, a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq sent an open invitation to ISIS. In 2020, it will do the same. 

    The Biggest Threat to Iraqi Oil

    For oil prices, the only real benefit to the Iran-Iraq conflict at this point is that Iraq is at a bit of a standstill when it comes to developing new projects, though its existing production will not be affected by any evacuation of U.S. oil workers, which has been minimal so far

    Since Iraq is already OPEC’s biggest over-producer, this is a bit of a balm on compliance.

    But the biggest threat to Iraqi oil in recent months has been Shia protesters fed up with a corrupt government. No one else is willing to touch the oil. 

    The biggest immediate threat is not Basra oil–it’s Kirkuk oil. 

    A U.S. troop withdrawal could easily relaunch a sectarian civil war in Iraq, and Kirkuk would be the first to fall. 

    Kirkuk is in northern Iraq, but outside the official territory of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). 

    It’s also one of ISIS’ key stomping grounds, and the only reason they have been kept from taking over this region entirely is the effort of a U.S.-led international anti-ISIS coalition, in which Kurdish Peshmerga forces played an integral role since 2014. 

    A withdrawal of U.S. troops at this point will ensure a return of ISIS, and a sectarian conflict is exactly what the Islamic State is hoping for.  

    At an attack on the K-1 base just in northwest Kirkuk in December launched the latest round in the Iran-U.S. proxy war in Iraq. 

    Prior to that, ISIS had already started escalating attacks on this base, with ISIS seeing a window of opportunity in an American shift to defense against Iran and Hezbollah in Iraq. We’re already seeing the uptick in ISIS attacks–and the focus is definitively Kirkuk. 

    Coalition forces may have won the Battle of Kirkuk in 2016, but ISIS is still there. 

    Basra oil is safe, for now. The biggest threat is to Kirkuk’s 9 billion barrels. This is where the next round of this conflict starts, and it will be ISIS that ultimately wins any ‘proxy’ war. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 22:25

  • Sig Sauer's Next Generation Machine Gun Receives Safety Certification With Special Forces
    Sig Sauer’s Next Generation Machine Gun Receives Safety Certification With Special Forces

    Sig Sauer announced Wednesday that the Special Operation Command (USSOCOM) had granted it with a safety certification for the new MG 338 Machine Gun, 338 Norma Mag Ammunition, and Next Generation Suppressors. 

    press release from the Sig Sauer details that upon safety certification, it will deliver multiple MG 338 Machine Guns, thousands of rounds of 338 Norma Mag Ammunition, along with high-tech silencers. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “The safety certification of the complete SIG SAUER MG 338 system and delivery of the system to USSOCOM is historically very significant. For the first time in decades the U.S. Military certified a new machine gun, ammunition, and suppressor at the same time, bringing new innovation, portability, and increased lethality to our ground forces, with all components coming from one company,” said Sig Sauer CEO Ron Cohen.

    Cohen added that “this certification was achieved following the outstanding performance of the complete MG 338 system through the rigors of the extensive function, durability, and safety tests set forth by USSOCOM.”

    The release notes the new machine gun “bridges the gap” between the current M240 (7.62x51cal) machine gun and the M2 (.50cal). The new weapon is “noticeably lighter, weighing only 20 pounds, and provides significantly more range and lethality.” 

    The MG 338 is a belt-fed, lightweight medium machine gun weighing about 20 pounds, chambered a 338 Norma Mag. The weapon has a greater range and can breach advanced body armor from extended distances. The weapon can be easily convertible to 7.62x51cal. 

    “We are incredibly proud of this historical accomplishment and honored to have received this safety certification by USSOCOM for the performance of the complete MG 338 system,” concluded Cohen.

    Textron Systems’ AAI Corporation delivered their next-generation machine gun to the Army last year that chambers a telescoped round between 6.5mm and 6.8mm and is expected to be the future replacement for the M16 rifle, M4 carbine, and M249 light machine gun.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Pentagon, flush with new cash from President Trump’s $2 trillion military spending spree, is expected to outfit soldiers with modern weapons in the next 2-4 years. Sig Sauer’s MG 338 Machine Gun and AAI’s next-generation machine gun could be some of the replacement weapons expected to enter service in the near term. With new weapons comes high-tech ammo, the new rounds are expected to penetrate the most advanced body armor Russia and China have to offer. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 22:05

  • Now, Everyone Pays The Piper: The End Of China's Economic Miracle
    Now, Everyone Pays The Piper: The End Of China’s Economic Miracle

    Authored by Brett Redmayne-Titley via Watching Rome Burn blog,

    In emulating the American economic raison d’etre, China has attempted to develop its unique capitalist model while ignoring that it too will soon suffer the same fate for the same reason: Unsustainable debt. When examining the recent realities of Chinese banking and finance over the past year it seems the steam that president Xi Jinping touts as powering the engine of his purported economic miracle of a master-planned economy is only a mirage, now almost completely evaporated before his eyes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Like the many other similarly foolish western nations, China seeks only one path out of this fiscal death spiral, one that will likely spell doom and/or revolution in many countries soon: More debt.

    China is becoming increasingly unable to continue to pay into the base of the world’s largest pyramid scheme of an economy and the cracks in the bubble are showing. This past year, saw three of the 4,279 Chinese lenders almost fail, if not for the massive intervention by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) of immediate liquidity via more debt. The Chinese economic miracle is built on unsustainable debt-based infrastructure projects over the past two decades that have provided China with a face of prosperity to show the world, but this is only a mask to hide the limited countrywide success of the Chinese miracle into the rural areas. The injection of $Trillions in capital has seen China distribute these sums across the base of its economy creating a GDP that hit a high of 14.2 % in 2007 then averaged nearly 9% for the next decade before dropping yearly to 6.1% in 2018. All this growth had produced a personal affluence to a sub-set of Chinese society that has stoked this appearance of a flourishing economy.

    This Chinese economic Keynesian trick of interjection of liquidity into national infrastructure is somewhat similar to the TVA and national works projects funded under Roosevelt’s depression-era New Deal. In this approach employment and therefore a growing tax base accelerated year after year as workers and corporations received the short-lived benefits of this massive windfall of available liquidity.

    China’s method of stimulus is of course distinguished from today’s American model that merely shovels the injection of its own manufactured $Trillions by using multiple fiscal tricks to by-pass the citizenry and instead shovel the cash straight into the wallets of the already super-wealthy. Meanwhile, the US peasant once again pines in the “Hope” of yet another election.

    The Metrics of a Failing Economy

    Many analysts have for nearly a decade opined that China’s belief in national fixed-asset investment, the biggest engine of China’s economy, has long been the fundamental contributor to Chinese GDP growth, which was directly proportional to an ongoing increase in public and private debt. China has relied on export and debt-financed fixed asset investment for growth for over two decades,” said Ho-Fung Hung, Professor in political economy at the Johns Hopkins University.

    But as the world economy slows while the metrics show a recession looming China’s economy is already cooling rapidly. “And as the central government and banking system keeps producing new loans to absorb the debt, it leads to the continuous debt buildup,” Maximilian Kärnfelt, an analyst with the Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies, told news service DW, adding that infrastructure investment still largely drives China’s economic growth since fixed investment contributed to 45 per cent of China’s GDP in 2016.

    In a sign of the disaster to come, the first Bank to almost fail was Baoshang Bank Co. in May 2019. In this instance, for the first time in twenty years, the government took over control and seized the bank. This progression next took form when Chinese regulators took a different approach by ordering three state-owned financial institutions to buy significant stakes in Bank of Jinzhou Co. When, Shandong-based Heng Feng Bank, which had failed to disclose its financial statements for two straight years, required a bail-out, the bank sold new shares for about $14 billion to a group of investors including a unit of China’s public sovereign wealth fund and a local government-backed asset management firm.

    Although these were some of the smaller rural banks, as shown this past month in Chinese reports, their economy is following the world in a quantified slowdown that has seen GDP slip yearly since 2012. Making the matter worse a similar world slow-down in purchasing is already affecting China’s manufacturing-based economy. The three bank failures were only the tip of a huge iceberg.

    China’s $40 Trillion banking system dwarfs the American system at double the size, with over 4,000 small, medium and massive, state-owned banks. The world’s four largest banks, including behemoth ICBC ($4TN), are all Chinese.

    The failure of just three banks was important enough that Chinese regulators submitted Chinese banks to a stress test and the results were shocking. China’s central bank admitted that China’s banking sector is “showing signs of strain.” The stress tests had revealed that over 13% of China’s 4,379 lenders were designated “high risk” by the central bank’s report. With this amounting to over 570 banks, and thus multiplied by the three existing examples of bank bail-out funding, with the Chinese economy following the world into recession, the financial numbers and likelihood of any future series of bail-outs are truly biblical. If not, fiscally impossible.

    Separately, the PBOC also stress-tested 30 medium- and large-sized banks in the first half of 2019. In the base-case scenario, assuming GDP growth dropped to 5.3% – or well above where China’s real GDP is now nine out of 30 major banks failed and saw their capital adequacy ratio drop to 13.47% from 14.43%. In the worst-case scenario, assuming GDP growth of 4.15%, or just 2% below the latest official Chinese GDP report, seventeen out of the thirty of these major banks failed the test. Separately, a liquidity stress test at 1,171 banks, representing nearly three-quarters of China’s banking sector by total assets, showed that ninety failed in the base-case and 159 in the worst-case scenario. The metrics of any collective bail-out indicates that China has upwards of an insurmountable $20 trillion problem rapidly approaching.

    In reaction to these first three bank failures, the stress tests and poorer economic news China did what centrally planned economies do: Chinese policymakers focused on strengthening oversight and regulation by the PBoC and gave it authority to write new rules for much of the financial sector. The China Banking Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission will now be merged as part of an overhaul aimed at resolving existing problems such as unclear responsibilities and cross-regulation as well as closing regulatory loopholes and curbing risk in the $40-43 trillion (€34.78 trillion) banking and insurance industries.

    With the metrics of China’s banking system already cause for considerable concern to the tune of $20 Trillion, this huge obligation is as much a mirage as the economy since it fails to add to the account the very large and un-tabulated Shadow Banking loans which would add $Trillions in debt to China’s already highly leveraged systemic banking risk. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which provides- despite its predatory legacy- some excellent yearly analysis of worldwide economic developments has warned China’s problems could lead to “financial distress” in the world’s second-biggest economy. China is seen as one of the economies most vulnerable to a banking crisis, although Beijing has repeatedly assured that the risks are under control. In response to the PBoC reports, Chinese Finance Minister Xiao Jie echoed that the situation “was under control.”

    China’s Economic Tricks of Sustainability.

    As the world economic body politic runs out of any remaining gas to keep a pilot light under the rapidly cooling metrics that show their long forestalled recession is near and certain, China is also contracting.

    The national debt of China, which is the total amount of money owed by the Chinese government and all organizations and branches stands at nearly CNY 38 Trillion ( $5.4 TN) and 54.44% of GDP.

    Chinese debt has been accumulating ever more rapidly. The Institute for International Finance (IIF) reported that year-on-year, in Q1 of 2019 China’s corporate, household and government debt increased 6% more from 297% of GDP to an incredible 303%. However, this is also more than a 100% increase since 2008 and amounts to 15% of all global debt.

    These figures do not include the off-the-books “Shadow Banking loans that some estimates predict would triple that debt percentage to much closer to $16 Trillion. The problems are most serious in China’s rural banking sector where an ever nervous public has reacted with two late-2019 bank runs at China’s Henan Yichuan Rural Commercial Bank and then at Yingkou Coastal Bank.

    At the end of 2018, the budget deficit of the Chinese government was close to five per cent. However, if the off-balance-sheet (“shadow”) financing of local governments is taken into consideration, the budget deficit rises to over 11 per cent. However, at the end of 2014, the official government deficit stood at less than one per cent, but an accounting which includes local “shadow” funding was around five per cent.

    China’s shadow banking system is so-called since this myriad of endemic lending trickery is believed to be massive in total and kept off the books. These risky, undisclosed loans entered China’s financial system in 2009 throwing open the doors to debt for a Chinese population hungry for investment in order to pay for all those Chinese and internationally made western goods.

    The main kind of shadow deposit is generally offered as a wealth management product (WMPs). Chinese banks offer these via aggressive marketing of high-interest-rate accounts as their alternative to savings accounts which are regulated to a maximum return of 3 %. Since these sanctioned shadow loans advertise a return of as much as 8% or more, normal banking customers have been throwing their miraculously large paychecks into these funds by the billions.

    One reason WMPs offer higher rates is that they are based on much riskier bank loans, much like the precursor to the late ’80s, early ’90’s American savings and loan meltdown. Incredibly, banks don’t hold these loans on their balance sheets or set aside capital against their potential defaults. Instead, they typically extend this debt via intermediaries called trust companies—firms that are not allowed to accept deposits or formally loan out money but are allowed to manage it. The trust companies create investment products like WMPs, which banks market for them in return for a commission.

    With some smaller Chinese banks having already found themselves either getting bailed out or the subject of a bank run, one reason is that, like America, China’s interbank/repo rates have surged amid growing counterparty concerns of the many banks seeking depleting available liquidity. This has forced many banks to rely almost entirely on new deposits to fund themselves, forcing them to hike their deposit rates to keep their funding levels stable. Like any Ponzi trick in banking, new cash is required to sustain these thousands of lending pyramids. With the economy in decline, this need has lead to some desperate regional banks offering incentives for depositor’s cash that would make the long-ago American “free toaster” seem ordinary.

    China has a massive pork famine that has seen disease wipe out 40% per cent of its pig population in 2019. With China being the world leader in pork consumption these bank’s desperations have created some interesting incentives to attract depositors. The SCMP reports that new clients who deposited 10,000 yuan (US$1,430) or more in a three-month time deposit at the Linhai Rural Commercial Bank in Duqiao in Zhejiang province were then eligible to enter a lottery to win a portion of pork ranging from 500 grams (18 ounces) to several kilograms. Other rural commercial banks in northern China’s Hebei province and western China’s Guizhou province have also launched similar pork rewards programs. Dushan Rural Commercial Bank, located in the remote mountainous county in Guizhou, offered a coupon for 10 yuan (US$1.4) worth of pork for every 10,000 yuan of new deposits.

    This solution has been touted as uniquely beneficial to these banks since, instead of offering higher rates which only accelerate the bank’s insolvency due to requiring higher payouts on deposits, the bank is instead making a one-time payment, and the unusual incentive is enough to garner substantial new deposits.

    PBoC cuts in its key lending rates in August ’19 designed to stimulate a slowing economy have only exacerbated net interest margin pressures on these banks. With less income from returns on their loans and without the many funding options available to China’s much larger banks, these increasingly high-interest rates that China’s smaller banks have to offer in order to attract new cash deposits could further lead to their insolvency.

    It’s been over four years since the last official Chinese benchmark rate cut. With America leading the way across the globe with rate cuts aplenty and China still having a base rate of far higher than the US rate of < 1.5%, it was only a matter of time for China to also drop rates.

    With the new authority given to the PBoC, this key Loan Prime Rate (LPR) has become the new Benchmark Reference Rate to be used by banks for lending. This, like most recent decisions are designed to interject further liquidity in the form of debt once again into a still failing economy by lowering borrowing costs for small businesses. This rate will be now set monthly (20th of every month) and will be linked to the Medium-term Lending Facility rate. The current 1 year LPR stands at 4.15% after its latest cut on Nov 30 versus the Benchmark Rate of 4.35%. This number is sure to continue to shrink and can be considered a key indicator of Chinese frustration at retaining needed annual GDP growth since the result of this one move lowered the costs of the roughly 152 trillion yuan ($21.7 trillion) in yuan-denominated outstanding loans held by financial institutions (that are actually on the books) in a further hopeful attempt to again boost economic growth.

    Just mere days after the 20 bps cut the PBoC further highlighted its desperate need for capital, announcing that it will be lowering the required reserve ratio (RRR) – or the amount of money banks are required to have on hand – by 50bps for commercial lenders. Currently, the required reserve ratio is 13% for large banks and 11% for small banks. The cut, which is the first since September, will bring the blended reserve ratio for Chinese banks to the lowest level since October 2007. In doing so PBoC effectively released about 800 billion yuan ($115 billion) in instant liquidity from out of the already cash-strapped financial system.

    All these adjustments by China and the PBoC do little to control or pay-off increasing debt and are designed to maintain the Chinese miracle of TVA style infrastructural improvements that has been the employment engine of its economic growth. China’s new development of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), although a masterstroke in Eurasian commerce, also serves to continue the illusion.

    As traditional monetary policy becomes ineffective to boost the economy, Chinese President Xi has installed twelve former executives at the state-run financial institutions across the country who will support the communist government’s ability to combat banking and debt difficulties, reported Taipei Times.

    These appointments are in response to growth collapsing to a three-decade low in 2019. New manufacturing orders did increase but this was in large- and medium-sized enterprises. Small enterprises continued deeper into contraction and new non-manufacturing orders slowed, pushing employment further into quantified contraction.

    An easier to understand recessionary metric, passenger car vehicle sales, fell yet again in December, plunging 3.6% to 2.17 million units, according to the China Passenger Car Association. This marks the 18th drop in the past 19 months for the country. Sales fell 7.5% in 2019 and 6% in 2018. GM said that its sales were down 15% in China and said that pressure into 2020 would likely continue.

    Meanwhile, local Chinese manufacturers’ numbers are also down. BYD Co. posted an 11% drop in 2019 sales and SAIC Motor reported a “similar decline”.

    Worse, exports to the United States were down 23% from the prior year.

    Running from the Piper’s Call

    But, it seems that China has no choice but to carry on with the façade of financed infrastructure projects as the only path to survival. Said Victor Shih, an associate professor of political economy at the University of California in San Diego;

    “Because it [infrastructure investment] already is a large contributor to growth, the slowing investment will substantially reduce growth rates. This is not what the leadership wants.”

    Shih’s assertion seemed confirmed when last year, President Xi said Chinese banks would lend 380 billion yuan ($55.09 billion) to support Belt and Road cooperation, and Beijing would also inject 100 billion yuan into a Silk Road Fund. Some observers view the project as an instrument designed to help the Chinese economy, with state-owned companies in specific sectors expected to profit massively from its implementation.

    But they still need funding and Chinese banks on their own volition may be reluctant to get involved when already having troubles of their own. Andrew Collier, managing director at Orient Capital Research, says

    “The banks [may] remain leery of these projects because they doubt they will be profitable and they will be stuck with bad loan. In the end, we are going to see increasing defaults among smaller institutions, the collapse of private loans via wealth management products, and growing layoffs in areas of the country with less political power.”

    Making matter worse, a study conducted by the Center for Global Development estimates that the initiative could increase debt sustainability-related banking problems in eight countries also involved in the BRI.

    “I still think that if growth falls below a certain level, the top leadership will order a stimulus, which involves acceleration in debt growth,” said Victor Shih. “That is the only viable tool in China’s arsenal if the economy slows too much.”

    As noted in a recent article by University of Helsinki economics professor Tuomas Malinen, China has stimulated its economy aggressively in Q1 and Q3 2019 but interestingly has not continued its past emphasis on infrastructure investments as in 2015/2016. Q3 of 2019 saw record-breaking stimulus programs, however, China concentrated instead on providing loose credit to enterprises through both conventional and “shadow” banks.

    As Malinen forewarns:

    “What is notable is that even with this record stimulus, China has kept its economy growing barely above the ‘official rate’. This tells us that the Chinese economy has reached or is very close to reaching the point of debt saturation, where households and corporations simply cannot absorb any more debt, and any new debt-issuance fails to stimulate the economy.”

    Though a massive infrastructure-spending program could revive growth, the ability of China to issue fiscal stimulus is starting to be seriously limited. This effectively means that China is fiscally unable to underwrite massive infrastructure projects and so any new world-economy-saving stimulus from China, as in 2015/2016, will be practically impossible. New infrastructure initiatives- if recessionary metrics continue to deteriorate- could only be realized if those costs are directly monetized by the PBoC. This would be the weapon of last resort for China but , when considering a declining economy, may soon be inevitable.

    As Goes China…?

    China is just one more working example of the failure of the many globalist economies worldwide that are already similarly suffering in the grip of massive unsustainable- if not orchestrated- debt. Which country becomes the first to trigger the almost certainly pending domino effect of global economic collapse, is merely a rhetorical question at this point. As goes China…?

    This week in an interview, former Reagan OMB director David Stockman highlighted the global economic link to China, saying,

    “The world economy would be not nearly as good as it looks had the Chinese not been borrowing like there’s no tomorrow and building regardless of whether its efficient or profitable.”

    Stockman added, in summation,

    “The whole global economy is really dependent on China piling even more debt onto the $40 trillion pile they already have.”

    China economically continues to play the financial role of Kenneth Lay to its American mentor’s Bernie Madoff. But in the last few months China has shown, like so many other so-called first world economies, that it too is now all-in at the casino and using only borrowed money in a desperate effort to stay at the table…or starve.

    Worldwide, many countries already burn in political turmoil of their own debt-ridden making as their own primal forces of nature squeeze their populations with the resultant new mantra of ever increasing austerity while the IMF and World Bank waits in the wings, salivating to gobble-up the carcass.

    Alas, when it comes to unsustainable national endemic debt one primal truth is now being heard clearly in China, as in other Central bank boardrooms across the globe, and the empty dinner plates of their public…

    When the time comes to pay the piper, that debt will be paid, no matter…but the Piper will take, in lieu of payment, pork, flesh, blood, or… dreams!


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 21:45

  • Retail Carnage Continues: Bose Lays Off 100s, Shutters All Retail Stores
    Retail Carnage Continues: Bose Lays Off 100s, Shutters All Retail Stores

    Taking the award for Most Continents Covered While Shrinking Retail Footprint this week is Bose, which will be laying off hundreds of employees to close retail stores across the world. 

    The company plans on closing its entire retail footprint in North America, Europe, Japan, and Australia, according to The Verge. It adds up to a total of 119 stores, according to a spokesperson. The closures are slated to happen “over the next few months”.

    And the company was direct in why it was making the move: it stated this week that its products “are increasingly purchased through e-commerce”.

    The company has had a brick and mortar presence since 1993 and has locations across many shopping centers and malls scattered around the U.S. The stores help showcase the company’s headphones, speakers and other hardware. But there are usually similar demo areas in stores like Best Buy, which still sells Bose products. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The company hasn’t said exactly how many people would be laid off, stating: 

    “Originally, our retail stores gave people a way to experience, test, and talk to us about multi-component, CD and DVD-based home entertainment systems. At the time, it was a radical idea, but we focused on what our customers needed, and where they needed it — and we’re doing the same thing now.”

    Colette Burke, vice president of Global Sales, continued:

    “It’s still difficult, because the decision impacts some of our amazing store teams who make us proud every day. They take care of every person who walks through our doors – whether that’s helping with a problem, giving expert advice, or just letting someone take a break and listen to great music. Over the years, they’ve set the standard for customer service. And everyone at Bose is grateful.”

    The company says it will keep stores open elsewhere:

     “In other parts of the world, Bose stores will remain open, including approximately 130 stores located in Greater China and the United Arab Emirates; and additional stores in India, Southeast Asia, and South Korea.”

    The company also says it is offering outplacement assistance and severance to employees.

    Meanwhile, the move may not surprise Zero Hedge readers, as we noted just two days ago that mall vacancies are hitting two-decade highs. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    US retailers announced 9,300 store closings in 2019, according to Coresight, indicating that the retail apocalypse and a massacre of malls are far from over. Mall operators saw a surge of store closures in 2H19 and ahead of Christmas despite a relatively stable consumer that has been leveraging up via the use of credit cards

    Barbara Denham, a senior economist at Reis, said one notable trend during the 2019 holiday season was the shift in spending habits from brick and mortar stores to online. Denham said recent vacancy statistics paint a disastrous picture for shopping malls as vacancy rates have surged to a record high of 9.7%.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 21:25

  • Western Media Coverage Of Russia As An Exercise In Propaganda
    Western Media Coverage Of Russia As An Exercise In Propaganda

    Authored by Gilbert Doctorow,

    The notion of “fake news” has entered our vocabulary as a pejorative term for dissemination of bogus information, usually by social media, sometimes by traditional print and electronic channels which happen to hold positions contradicting the tenets of our conventional wisdom, i.e., liberal democracy. The term has been applied to Russian state owned media such as RT to justify denying such outlets normal journalistic credentials and privileges.

    In this essay, I will employ the more traditional term propaganda, which I take to mean the manipulation of information which may or may not be factually true in order to achieve objectives of denigrating rivals for influence and power in the world, and in particular for denigrating Russia and the “Putin regime.”

    The working tools of such propaganda are

    • tendentious determination of what constitutes news, which build on the inherent predisposition of journalism to feature the negative and omit the positive from daily reporting while they carry this predisposition to preposterous lengths

    • the abandonment of journalism’s traditional “intermediation,” meaning provision of necessary context to make sense of the facts set out in the body of a news report. In this regard, the propagandistic journalist does not deliver the essential element of paid-for journalism which should distinguish it from free “fake news” on social media and on the internet more broadly

    • silence, meaning underreporting or zero reporting of inconvenient news which contradicts the conventional wisdom or might prompt the reader-viewer to think for himself or herself. As a colleague and comrade in arms, professor Steve Cohen of Princeton and NYU, has said in his latest book War with Russia?: the century old motto of The New York Times “All the news that’s fit to print” has in our day turned into “All the news that fits.”

    Demonstrations of the arguments I present here could easily fill a book if not a library shelf. However, I think for purposes of this essay, it suffices to adduce several examples of the three violations of professional journalism giving us a constant stream of propaganda about Russia and its political leadership by offering a few reports drawn from the very cream of our print and electronic media.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In particular, I have chosen as markers the Financial Times and the BBC. The use of propaganda methods in their coverage of Russia is all the more telling and damaging, given that in a great many domains these channels otherwise represent some of the highest quality standards to be found in reporting anywhere today and consequently enjoy the respect of their subscribers and visitors, who little suspect they could be so prejudicial in their coverage of select domains like Russia.

    *  *  *

    As 2019 drew to a close, many of our media outlets drew attention to two Russia-related anniversaries: the just celebrated thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall with the retreat of Soviet armed forces from Eastern Europe that it touched off; and the soon to be celebrated twentieth year of Vladimir Putin’s hold on power in the Kremlin. Both subjects may be fairly called news worthy and so fully correspond to traditional journalistic values. What has been exceptional and unacceptable has come in the second category of violations listed above – lack of context.

    Starting in October 2019, the BBC’s Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg did several programs dedicated to the fall of the Berlin Wall. During the Christmas to New Year’s period, the BBC aired one program which consisted of two parts. In the first half, Rosenberg considered the impact of the withdrawal of Russian forces from East Germany on the Russians themselves and interviewed the former chief of those forces, who explained at length how they “came home” to shocking living conditions in the provinces, how they were abandoned to their fate by their own government. The tone of the reporting was sympathetic to Russians’ hardships and it was good that their side of the story from the ground up was given the microphone. What implied criticism there was of the powers that be came from a patriotic source. However, the second half of the program was turned over to a certain Lydia Shevtsova, a very outspoken Putin-hater, formerly with the Carnegie Center Moscow, till she was finally booted out and moved to a more congenial and supportive think tank, Chatham House, in London, where her anti-Russian vitriol is encouraged and disseminated by her co-author, ex-British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood. Among the gem quotations which Shevtsova delivered was the claim that Russia under Putin is a declining power which is capable only of disrupting the world order, a spoiler not capable of any creative or productive contribution. Of course, Shevtsova has a right to her opinions, however the BBC had an obligation to its audience to explain exactly who the lady is and, if they wanted to practice fair play, to offer an alternative interpretation of what Vladimir Putin’s Russia stands for on the global stage today. They did not do either. The result was pure propaganda not news and analysis.

    As for violations in the categories one and two above, a very good example arose following the recent publication of a study performed by the Levada Center public opinion polling organization in Moscow during October which showed that “53 per cent of 18-to-24 year-olds wanted to leave the country.” This was written about by many of our news peddlers, including FT. The decision to feature this factoid and use it to support claims that the Putin regime’ is a failure fits well with tendentiousness of our news coverage. Meanwhile, nearly all coverage of that study, including in the Financial Times, offered no contextual information whatsoever, when the context was begging to be told.

    The article in FT which carried the Levada Center findings was published on 9 January as “Generation Putin: how young Russians view the only leader they’ve ever known.” The remarks on Levada followed directly on another statement begging for context: “Youth unemployment in Russia is more than three times the rate of the total population, according to 2018 data, compared with just twice the rate in 2000.”

    First, as regards those 53% would-be “leavers,” one might ask: and so, why don’t they just leave? Russia today is truly a free country: anyone other than convicted felons who wants a passport can get it, and get it rather quickly. And thanks to the efforts of their remarkably hardworking Ministry of Foreign Affairs, most of the world welcomes Russian travelers without a visa requirement. But for that matter, getting a Schengen visa for the EU is not so complicated either.

    However, those 53% are, in fact, not going anywhere. They are just sounding off about their youthful disgruntlement with a world created and run by their parents.

    At the same time, as the Financial Times editorial board knows full well, young, middle-aged and even old have been leaving the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Romania and other former Soviet Bloc countries in droves, for the past thirty years up to the present day. That was the subject of an article published in the FT on the next day, 10 January 2020 under a title which speaks for itself: “Shrinking Europe.” The states I mentioned here have seen 25 and 30% loss of their population to citizens voting with their feet and departing the shrinking economies and personal prospects which result directly from deindustrialization and economic colonization by Germany and other founding Member States of the EU since 1991. The issue appears in the news now because, as the FT explains, “Andrej Plenkovic, the Croatian prime minister, has decided to elevate population decline to the top of his agenda as Zagreb assumes the EU’s rotating presidency.” Good for him! Now that the skeleton has finally come out of the EU closet, all the stories about Russia’s demographic crisis can be put in context – by those few who wish to do so.

    Second, as regards unemployment in Russia today, I believe that similar ratios of youth unemployment to the general population unemployment can be found most everywhere in Western Europe if not in the world at large. The fact that this ratio has worsened comparatively in Russia since 2000 may be explained by the anomalous situation in Russia prevailing throughout the 1990s in step with the economic collapse that accompanied the transition to a market economy. Precisely the older generations, those over 40, were thrown into the street and their children or grandchildren were the first to be hired by the newly emerging industrial conglomerates, not to mention by Western multinationals settling in. What has happened since 2000 is merely a reversion to more normal distribution of employment and unemployment in the population as the Russian economy stabilizes.

    Moreover, it would have been helpful had the author named the current level of youth and general unemployment in Russia. In fact, the general unemployment in Russia stands at something like 5%, so youth unemployment would be 15% by his reckoning. I assure you that there are many EU Member States that would be delighted to have similarly low unemployment rates. Here in Brussels the general rate has been over 20% for ten years or more, while youth unemployment has always been considerably higher.

    Dear Reader!

    For those who find my examples above too subtle to support my argument for egregious propagandistic treatment of Russia in our media, allow me to introduce violation number three, silence, in a way that should sweep away all objections to my thesis.

    I draw your attention to an event that occurred in the past week about which you probably know nothing, or perhaps a wee bit from the odd man out reporting in the Wall Street Journal and a few other outlets. I am talking about the visit of Vladimir Putin to Damascus on Tuesday, 7 January. To their credit, the WSJ carried a short article in their 8 January edition, but went no further than to note this was the second visit by Putin since the Russians joined the fight in support of President Bashar Assad back in September 2015, turning the tide in the civil war his way. That is true, but only represents a tiny slice of what all our journalists, including the WSJ’s could have and possibly did learn from watching Russian state television on the 7th. What our media chose not to report was passed over in silence because it shows the complexity of Russia’s policy in the Middle East that includes but goes well outside the domain of pure geopolitics. This is so not least because of the date chosen for the visit, which happens to be Orthodox Christmas.

    On the evening of the 6th, that is to say on Christmas eve, by the Russian Orthodox calendar, Russian state television broadcast live coverage of the Christmas service in the Christ the Savior cathedral in Moscow officiated by Patriarch Kirill, with prime minister Medvedev present on behalf of the Government. Then it cut to the service in St. Petersburg, where Vladimir Putin sat in the congregation, as is his custom. The commentator mentioned in passing that the Patriarch’s father, a parish priest, just happened to be the one who baptized Vladimir Putin as a child where they all lived, in the Northern Capital.

    The next coverage of Putin on state television was from Damascus on the 7th, where he obviously arrived on a night flight from Petersburg. I did not see video coverage, perhaps because the journalist pool was very limited for security reasons. But still photos and reports on state television informed us that Putin had not merely held talks with President Assad on the Russian military base outside the capital, but had strolled together with him down the streets of Damascus, had visited the main church in the (still existing) Christian quarter of the city, had presented to the Patriarch of Antioch an icon of the Virgin and had also gone on to visit the city’s oldest and largest mosque.

    What you have here is precisely the second line of justification for Russian presence in Syria alongside military/geopolitical reasons: resuming Russia’s 19th century role as protector of the Orthodox population in the Holy Land and the broader Middle East. A similar role was exercised back then by France on behalf of the Catholic populations, but that since has been totally negated by rampant secularism and multiculturalism in Western Europe.

    It also has to be said that Putin’s visit to Damascus was back-to-back with other very high visibility political statements: his visit to Istanbul on the 8th for the official opening of the TurkSteam gas pipeline and for lengthy talks with President Erdogan that ended in a joint statement calling for a truce in the Libyan civil war for which Russia and Turkey support opposing sides; and his visit on the 9th to Russian naval exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean that included the launch of Russia’s latest hypersonic missiles, the reality of which U.S. and other Western experts have yet to acknowledge.

    With this I rest my case on the unfortunate propagandistic behavior of our media which deprive the broad Western public of any chance to make sense of the most dangerous military and political standoff of our age.

    *  *  *

    Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2017.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 21:05

  • Middle Age Misery Peaks At 47 For Most Americans, Study Finds
    Middle Age Misery Peaks At 47 For Most Americans, Study Finds

    Middle age can be a miserable time, particularly for a certain cohort of Gen Xers who are struggling through divorce, a dead-end career, insufficient savings or overwhelming debt.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But David Blanchflower, a professor at Dartmouth College and former BoE policy maker, examined data across 132 countries to measure the relationship between wellbeing and age.

    And what he found surprised him, according to Bloomberg.

    He concluded that every country has a “happiness curve” that’s U-shaped over a typical lifetime.

    “The curve’s trajectory holds true in countries where the median wage is high and where it is not and where people tend to live longer and where they don’t,” Blanchflower wrote in a study that was published Monday by the NBER.

    For most of the developed world, the age of peak unhappiness is 47.2 years old.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Most of a person’s middle years are miserable, according to the study. But oddly enough, as we approach the golden years, we start to appreciate life a little bit more.

    Perhaps that has something to do with approaching retirement age (something millennials might never reach). Or maybe it’s simply the wisdom of age.

    But for most of life, expect the misery to get worse before it gets better. Just one more reason why Americans are seeking mental health advice in droves.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 20:45

  • The Population Collapse Behind Rates, Debt, & The Asset Price Explosion
    The Population Collapse Behind Rates, Debt, & The Asset Price Explosion

    Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

    This may not be a surprise to many males, but human females are unlike the rest of the animals on earth.  Human females have a unique and totally differentiating factor from nearly all other animal life; their bodies cease being capable of pregnancy approximately half way through their life cycle.  This natural change to sterility (menopause) does not happen in the animal kingdom (nor in human males) essentially so long as they live (ok, actually there may be a couple of whales and porpoises that may also go through menopause…but I digress).  Animals and male humans are still able to reproduce nearly until the end.  But not human females.  Even before menopause fully takes over, typically around 50 years of age, fertility rates drop radically after 40 and miscarriages surge among those able to get pregnant.  By 45, pregnancies essentially cease.

    What the hell does this have to do with economics, you may be asking yourself?

    Judging the size and change of humankinds population is quite different than any other species on earth because of this truncated period of fertility among human females. Thus, to gauge the direction of our species, and the future consumption and potential economic activity, we must focus on annual births versus the 20 to 40 year-old female population and understand that the post childbearing, 40+ year-old female population is, from a fertility perspective, simply an inert echo chamber. The 20 to 40 and 40+ year-old populations shown below through 2040 are not estimates or projections but actual persons which already exist and (absent some pandemic, world war, or change in life spans) will slide through the next 20 years.  All data (except where noted) comes from the UN World Population Prospects 2019 and they collect / compile all the data from the national and regional bodies.  The only real variables in what I’ll show below are immigration, deaths, and births over the next 20 years.  I also primarily focus on the world excluding Africa.  Africa consumes so little, has relatively very low emigration rates, is highly reliant on the rest of the world for it’s economic growth, but from a population perspective, is growing so rapidly as to skew the picture.

    But at the onset of a declining childbearing population (excluding Africa) and ongoing declines in fertility rates, the UN projects that the decline in births (excluding Africa) since 1989 will only continue.  But I’ll show why significantly lower annual births are far more realistic than the UN projections.  And given nation after nation is reporting “shocking” declines in births in 2018 and again 2019…the estimated numbers of births are only set to be significantly lower as something very momentous is appears to be happening.

    Last 70 years…

    1950-’89 +32 million annual births, +375 million female 20-40 year-olds, +320 million female 40+year-olds

    1989-’20 -17 million annual births, +230 million female 20-40year-olds, +680 million female 40+year-olds

    Next 20 years…

    2020-’40 -10 million births annually by 2040, -32 million female 20-40year-olds, +435 million female 40+year-olds

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Below, looking at the same data as above, but focusing on the year over year change of 20 to 40 year-olds (red columns) versus the same for 40+ year-olds (blue columns), annual births (black line), and federal funds rate (yellow line).  From a global population perspective, the 1980’s were the turning point; federal funds rate peaking in 1981 (restricting access to capital as the growth in global demand was at its zenith), annual childbearing female population growth peaking in 1985 (adding nearly 18 million females in that year alone), and annual births subsequently peaking in 1989. Since 1989, the under 40 year old annual growth keeps decelerating, the births keep declining, and the federal funds rate moving lower.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In 2020 or 2021, the global childbearing population of females (excluding Africa) will begin outright declining.  The only thing rising was the annual growth of the 40+ year old population.  However, the echo of annual growth among the post childbearing female population will peak around 2028…and then rapidly begin the deceleration glide path (still growing, but much slower while the childbearing population will continue to be in outright decline indefinitely).

    Looking at the pictures through the global regions.

    East Asia (China, Japan, Taiwan, S/N Korea, Mongolia)

    For East Asia, 1989 was peak annual births, and the crossover point of post-childbearing outnumbering childbearing was in 2000.  Births continue tanking and so is the childbearing female population.  Only the fertility-wise inert post childbearing population continues soaring.  By 2040, the region is set to reach a 2.8 post-childbearing to childbearing ratio.  The higher this ratio moves, the greater the financial and societal pressure of elderly generations on the younger generations…further negatively impacting fertility rates and economic demand/growth.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China

    2020 births will be about 50% lower than the 1989 peak, and given the known decline of a minimum of 45 million females of childbearing age by 2040 (and almost 70 million fewer, or -30% fewer, than the 2000 peak) there is really no good reason (other than massive government intervention) that births don’t fall significantly further.  My guestimate in blue is likely to be far too “optimistic”.  By 2040, there will be more than 2.7 post-childbearing females for every potential mother.  And now a trade deal with a nation that has an indefinitely shrinking domestic demand and massive housing over-capacity, factory overcapacity, etc. for a population (let alone middle class population) that will never be coming…hmm, interesting.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Japan

    If Japan were a human, now would be about the time to bring in hospice care.  From a growth perspective, they are terminal as even the 40+ year-old segment is now making its turn to decline along with births and the childbearing population.  By 2040, there will be more than 3.7 post-childbearing females for every potential mother.  What saved Japan during the long decline in domestic demand, a long rise in global export demand…is now over.  The Japanese / German models of reliance on exports to make up for decelerating/declining domestic demand was premised on fast rising global demand which is simply no longer supported by a growing population of potential consumers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    South Korea

    Again and again I am shocked when I look at South Korea.  The 70% collapse in annual births will only continue picking up speed to the downside as those capable of childbearing are in freefall…while the 40+ population dwarf’s the under 40 year-olds by more than 2 to 1 now and will be almost 4 to 1 by 2040 (a done deal, not a prediction).  Absent state mandated pregnancies (or the like) births will fall in excess of 80% and may even be down 90%+ by 2040?  A society collectively choosing not to reproduce or replace themselves…essentially committing a collective suicide at a time of the most relative plenty Korea has ever known, it boggles the mind!?!  Again, collapsing domestic demand while global export markets are turning away and inward to meet their needs…it boggles the mind and this is not going to be pretty.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Eastern Europe (Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia)

    By 2030, the childbearing females of Eastern Europe will be nearly a third fewer than existed as of 2011.  I am suggesting that given a third fewer potential females of childbearing age and given continuing flat to falling fertility rates…births will be significantly lower than the UN is projecting.  The existing decline of 50% is likely to be down something like 70%+ by 2040.  Like Japan, Eastern Europe’s post-childbearing population is set to begin declining around 2030, and accelerating depopulation will be the order of the day.  2030 will also be the peak post-childbearing to childbearing ratio at nearly 3 to 1.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Western Europe

    Not as dramatic as East Asia or Eastern Europe thanks to ongoing immigration, but the destination is the same.  Growing quantities among the post childbearing population and ever fewer births and potential mothers.  Almost a 2.9 post child-bearing to child-bearing ratio by 2040.  The weight of the promises made to the old to be paid from the young is a crushing weight only further depressing births.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    United States

    The charts for the US have a big problem, they assume high rates of immigration (primarily of childbearing age) to maintain a flat childbearing population shown from 2020 through 2040.  However, the reality is that in 2019, the US had the lowest population growth in it’s history for three reasons, tanking births, net outflow among illegal Mexicans, and far tighter border controls reducing immigration to a relative trickle.  Further, the locations that US immigrants are now coming from (China, India) and the education and income levels of the females coming in is with fertility rates even lower than the general US population.  Surging costs of living (rent, healthcare, insurance, daycare, education, etc.) beyond income is forcing females to work to avoid financial wreck.  Getting married, having children is simply a luxury more and more simply find beyond their means…and given widely available contraceptives, this is more of a choice than ever.  Minimum of 2.2 ratio by 2040…but if the childbearing population falls, as I expect, the ratio (and societal weight it represents) will move northward.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Latin America (Western Hemisphere except US/Canada)

    Births are declining, the childbearing population is at it’s zenith and will shortly begin its secular decline, and only the post-childbearing population is growing.  By 2040, the childbearing to post childbearing ratio will be about 1.8 to 1.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam)

    The growth of the childbearing population is over and a decades long period of a flat childbearing population is underway.  Births will likely slowly recede with declining fertility rates among a zero growth childbearing population.  By 2040, the post childbearing will outnumber the childbearing by a 1.8 to 1 ratio.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Bhutan/Nepal, Sri Lanka)

    Like Southeast Asia, a long period of zero growth among annual births will be coming through the childbearing population beginning in 2030.  By 2040, India’s childbearing population will essentially be at it’s peak and the 1.4 post childbearing to 1 childbearing ratio will be ready to rip higher over the next two decades.  The engine of population growth among the worlds most populous region has already stalled and begun to reverse although it will take decades before this is apparent in the overall population numbers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But Africa Will Continue To Populate The Earth!?!

    Finally, the chart below shows the year over year change in births among the world (excluding Africa) versus year over year change in Africa, from 1950 through 2040.  Note the great gyrations for births among the world (black line) versus the smooth and steady year over year increases in Africa (aqua line)…except that one deceleration around 2018?!?  All forward growth among births is anticipated to take place in Africa, essentially just offsetting the declining births among the remainder of the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Getting a closer look from 2000 through 2040, the great 2008 through 2018 deceleration (still growing, but much slower) in growth of births among Africa is much more noticeable.  Also of import, this UN report came out in early 2019, and the last hard data is through 2018 most everything from 2019 on is projections.  So, note the hard data 2008 through 2018 is suggesting the same issues plaguing the worldwide slowdown in births is likely impacting Africa as well.  Of course, with a fast rising childbearing population in Africa, the UN demographers immediately project that Africa’s births will return to high year over year increases from 2019 onward…rather than suggesting that the same something that has turned global births upside down world-over will continue to show up in Africa.  Definitely something to watch as, again, the only thing keeping global births from really tanking has been Africa, but I’ve a funny feeling this depopulation contagion is likely working it’s way through Africa now.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What is the point of all this?

    The global economy is premised on perpetual growth of demand, of supply, of money, of asset prices, etc.  But the pre-eminent engine for the growth (at least for the last few centuries) has been a rising population.  More people need more of everything.  This means more factories, more supply networks, more infrastructure, more homes, more cars, creating more employment, etc.  Including more loans and debt being lent into existence, particularly among the younger populations allowing for the purchase of vehicles, homes, etc. in the present to be repaid “later”.  But when the collective younger adult population, undertaking the vast majority of leverage, ceases growing and all the growth shifts to older and elderly adults, who undertake relatively low levels of debt or in elderly years move to outright deleverage…the money supply ceases to grow organically and begins to shrink antithetically to a perpetually growing system. 

    It has been a long run-up since WWII to get here; decades of rate hikes during accelerating demand (constricting supply of money and causing inflation), then decades of rate cuts during decelerating demand (expanding supply of money and causing deflation but simultaneously asset inflation), resultant debt through individuals, corporations, and federal governments, all intertwined with the deceleration of population growth.  Since 2009, the Fed is committed to buying bonds so as to avoid a free-market pricing for those bonds and avoid yields on US debt that would soar and consume much/most of the federal taxes collected.  The Fed is also now committed to not allow free-market pricing of assets based on decelerating population growth of young and large deleveraging among elderly.  I think it is also highly likely the Fed (and/or agents at its direction) are also manipulating precious metals and/or crypto’s so as to hide the severity of the situation.

    All of this is inorganic money creation taking place now is to mask the fundamental accelerating weakness that a low population growth can organically support.  The Federal government and Federal Reserve have now gone so far that any deceleration in inorganic growth (let alone outright declines in balance sheet, rate hikes, declines in excess reserves, tax hikes, lower federal deficits) have a high potential to take the economy into not a recession but a depression unlike the world has known.  The primary ingredients for removing ourselves from previous recessions/depressions no longer exist.  Global demand will begin declining indefinitely as this demographic picture plays out and rates back at zero will do little to move the needle (aside from more asset inflation).  The fast rising population of elderly will continue to consume less than they did in their prime years and deleverage more…far beyond the capability of the young adults to offset the financial, economic, and currency impacts.  The true picture is that a generations reset is likely in the offing before the demographic and depopulation dynamics can be turned around, before the debt can all be extinguished, before the overcapacity can be expunged.

    And I guess, the trillion dollar question should be how did we get here?  Were the gyrations in the population and subsequent decelerations (and imminent population collapses in many nations/regions) simply the result of birth care becoming widely available, urbanization, female employment rates, etc. etc. that happened of their own accord…or if instead this is by design as central banks had an over-riding mandate since the 1970’s (not unlike China…but by a different means), only now becoming clear?!?  Was this simply humankind going beyond itself or was this imminent collapse centrally designed and engineered?


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 20:25

  • Climate-Kids' "Trump Is Endangering Our Future" Case Crushed By 9th Circuit Court
    Climate-Kids’ “Trump Is Endangering Our Future” Case Crushed By 9th Circuit Court

    On the same day as 17-year-old Great Thunberg stood in front of thousands of young people in Switzerland, fearmongering their imminent death due to old white men in charge of the world refusing to listen to her; a US federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit by 21 ‘climate kids’ who claimed the U.S. government’s climate policies and reliance on fossil fuels harms them, jeopardizes their future and violates their constitutional rights.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Oregon-based youth advocacy group Our Children’s Trust filed the lawsuit in 2015 in Eugene on behalf of the youngsters (aged between 8 and 18). It sought an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide emission.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Ninth Circuit ruled that the children must look to the political branches – Congress and the executive branch – for action, rather than the courts.

    The plaintiffs have made a compelling case that action is needed; it will be increasingly difficult in light of that record for the political branches to deny that climate change is occurring, that the government has had a role in causing it, and that our elected officials have a moral responsibility to seek solutions,”

    We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box. That the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.”

    As KOIN reports, the 2-1 vote for dismissal was a major blow for the climate activists, who have filed numerous similar cases in state and federal courts and currently have nine cases pending in state courts from Alaska to New Mexico.

    Of course, it goes without saying that a lawyer for the children said the group intended to appeal the decision to a panel of the full circuit.

    “The Juliana case is far from over. The Youth Plaintiffs will be asking the full court of the Ninth Circuit to review this decision and its catastrophic implications for our constitutional democracy,” said Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, in a statement.

    “The Court recognized that climate change is exponentially increasing and that the federal government has long known that its actions substantially contribute to the climate crisis,” Olson added.

    The full ruling can be read below…


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 20:05

  • Got Gold? – David Rosenberg Warns "We're Going To Have Helicopter Money"
    Got Gold? – David Rosenberg Warns “We’re Going To Have Helicopter Money”

    Authored by Christoph Gisiger via TheMarket.ch,

    David Rosenberg, Chief Economist & Strategist of Rosenberg Research, doesn’t believe in the sustainability of the stock market rally, and warns that investors may be disappointed at the end of the year. He is bullish on energy stocks – and predicts that the gold price will surge to $3000.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mr. Rosenberg is also the author of Breakfast with Dave, a daily distillation of his economic and financial market insights.

    “At this level, many things have to go optimally so that the prices are higher at the end of the year,” comments David Rosenberg on the growing complacency among investors.

    The renowned economist and strategist is one of the most profound experts on the U.S. economy and one of the last remaining skeptics to warn of a correction.

    His bearish view is based on exorbitantly high equity valuations and over-optimistic earnings expectations. He also thinks that the US consumer sector is in worse shape than the consensus believes.

    Rosenberg, who recently launched his own economic consulting firm, explains in this extensive interview with The Market/NZZ why he is pleasantly surprised by the phase one agreement between the United States and China, why the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is currently the most important determinant for the financial markets, and why he is betting on gold, Treasuries, energy stocks and emerging markets.

    Mr. Rosenberg, after a strong start to the year, equity markets seem to be somewhat more hesitant recently. What’s your outlook for the coming months?

    This is a liquidity and momentum driven market. It’s been that way for the past four months where the correlation between the S&P 500 and the Fed’s balance sheet has expanded to a 95% relationship. This is a case of a very accommodative Fed policy. The double-digit growth in the money supply is bypassing the real economy and has entered into asset markets broadly, and specifically into equities. So as long as the Fed is in the game priming the monetary pump, shorting stocks is going to be a very dangerous game to play.

    How sustainable is this rally?

    I’m not bullish. Valuations are at extreme levels and the level of complacency is also a red flag. There are needles in the haystack, but this overall market rally is more a house of straw than a house of brick. You can rent liquidity rallies, and you can rent them for an extended period of time, but they’re very difficult to own. This is not a fundamentally based bull market like in the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, gains in stocks where premised on much better demographics and much more solid productivity growth.

    What are your main concerns regarding the U.S. economy?

    There’s this view that we’re going to have either a growth stabilization globally or a re-acceleration of economic growth. I don’t see that in any leading indicator. I think there’s going to be a lagged response in the U.S. economy to the sharp slowing that we saw abroad. Remember, twelve years ago it was the rest of the world that ultimately followed the U.S. This time around, the U.S. will follow the rest of the world.

    Then again, concerns of a U.S. recession have faded since last summer. Are we definitely out of the woods?

    People will claim that there is no recession. Statistically speaking that’s true as far as GDP is concerned. But we know for a fact that we actually had a four-quarter earnings recession. I never quite understood why GDP is so important to an equity investor who is buying an earnings stream. There’s no ticker “GDP” on the New York Stock Exchange. So it’s not about the overall level of GDP, it’s really about earnings and about the fact that if you look at the 30% share of the U.S. economy that is outside of the consumer space, we actually have been in a recession in the past two quarters.

    Why would you exclude the other 70% of the economy from an investor’s point of view?

    As an equity strategist, you look at the stock market from a breadth perspective to gauge the overall health of the marketplace. You should do the same thing to examine the breadth of GDP. On a median basis, the U.S. economy has stopped growing three quarters ago. Also, the U.S. consumer is not as nearly in good shape as people think. We see signs that the labor market is starting to show some fatigue. Moreover, there is a big split between spending growth on discretionary and non-discretionary items where things don’t look as robust. We surely saw that not just in the latest retail sales report but also in the CPI numbers this week. If consumer demand was really that strong the underlying inflation rate would be accelerating not decelerating. The Fed would not be cutting interest rates three times and then re-extending its balance sheet at a rate that even exceeds what they were doing with QE3.

    How stimulative is monetary policy right now?

    The most important correlation to the stock market today is the Fed’s balance sheet. The power of the Fed has become so acute that it has replaced the economy as a principle influence over the stock market to the point where there is only a 7% correlation between GDP and the S&P 500. Historically, in any given cycle that relationship was anywhere between 30% and 70%. The amount of easing that the Fed has done since the beginning of October by expanding the balance sheet is just about as strong in terms of basis points as the three rate cuts they engineered last year. They have cut rates almost a 150 basis points when you look at it on an equivalent basis.

    How are the financial markets going to react when the Fed tries to wind down its “Not-QE”-program?

    A lot will depend on what the macroeconomic background looks like, especially what’s happening with earnings estimates. But we have a template of what happened when the Fed provided a lot of liquidity juice to the marketplace with the Y2K special lending facilities in late 1999. At that time, the market strongly surged, and kept on rallying into the early part of 2000. Then, the Fed started to withdraw that liquidity and it wasn’t a pretty picture.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Keep in mind that the recession didn’t start until March of 2001, even though the problems in the stock market and particularly in technology started about a year ahead of the economic downturn.

    What do you think will happen this time?

    It’s tough to time when the Fed is finally going to sit back and say: “Ok, you know what: I’m not handing any more candy to the kindergarten class”. My sense is that the response to the Fed no longer priming the pump could be significant. We could end up unwinding almost anything we saw since last October. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. It doesn’t necessarily bring you a 20% stock market correction, but it certainly could bring you a 10% pull back.

    At what level will the S&P 500 trade at the end of the year?

    I would be surprised if the market is higher than today. The question will be how much lower, because earnings are going to be very challenged to meet the double-digit growth forecast based on the consensus view. Earnings will disappoint this year and I don’t think we’re going to get another 4-point multiple expansion. The question also will be the extent to which companies continue on this path of share buybacks. The principal source of demand in the stock market have been the corporations themselves. There is a big disconnect between the dollar level of earnings and earnings per share. The share count has been driven down to the lowest level in two decades, and that’s providing the support on a per share basis.

    On a positive note, the U.S. and China have finally signed the long-awaited trade agreement. What do you make out of this deal?

    The deal preserves the U.S. bargaining “stick” in the form of tariffs remaining on $360 billion of goods imported from China. But investors do seem impressed with this ‘Phase One’ trade deal, which did end up addressing IP protection issues, forced technology transfer, and termination clauses/dispute resolutions if either party reneges. Even skeptics like me have to be open minded to the possibility that there is more to this agreement than met the eye initially. At a minimum, the hostilities appear to be behind us for now and President Trump does have something tangible to campaign on. But the trade war is not over despite rising hopes that this trade deal with China is going to open up a prolonged period of appeasement. In fact, this is a much broader economic war between two clashing ideologies.

    It’s not much more than two weeks until the start of the Democratic primaries. To what degree are the U.S. elections going to impact the financial markets?

    Most market participants think that Donald Trump has a lock on the November elections. He may well, but I don’t think the odds are as close to a 100% as people think. There is going to be political risk in polling, and that’s going to inject more volatility into the marketplace.

    What should investors do in this kind of environment?

    I believe in Bob Farrell’s 10 Rules for investing. He was a legend at Merrill Lynch & Co. for several decades, and his first rule is that markets tend to return to the mean over time. Whether you’re looking at price/earnings, price/book or price/Ebitda, we’re pressing against the valuation levels we saw at the peaks back in 2000. So at this stage, a lot of things have to go right for the market to continue to appreciate until the end of the year. It can happen, but there is going to be bumps along the road. So to me, it’s less about buying the index. It’s more about identifying the sectors and subsectors that will hold up well in that sort of environment.

    What’s your advice for a Swiss investor coping with deeply negative interest rates?

    You want to be investing in things that are reversely correlated to negative interest rates. Firstly, as a Swiss investor or a European investor, I truly would want to be invested in bonds that have a positive yield and liquidity. That means you want to be in other countries’ fixed income markets where Central Banks have the capacity to ease monetary policy. The United States fits that bill. That’s why I’m still a big fan of Treasuries. I think the U.S. Treasury market will be a very good refuge.

    Where else do you spot opportunities?

    Gold is inversely correlated with either near zero rates, zero rates, or negative rates which makes it an ideal investment. Mark Twain coined the phrase “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”. But the thing about charts is that they don’t lie. Gold went through a long-term, multi-year basing period. Now, it has broken out and the chart looks fantastic. Also, gold is no country’s liability. For example, in the United States M2 growth is running at double digits. So when you compare the new supply of gold against the supply of money coming into the system from Central Banks, to me it’s a very clear cut case that you want to have very high exposure to bullion.

    You’re predicting that the gold price will surge to $3000 an ounce. What are the fundamentals your forecast is based on?

    It’s just a matter of when, not if. Gold demand is predicated on the final act which is going to be right-out debt monetization. When we get to the lows of the next recession, we’re going to find that these Central Banks that already have been extremely aggressive are going to engage in what is otherwise known as the “debt jubilee” or a right-out debt monetization which was actually the final chapter of the Bernanke playbook. Remember, Ben Bernanke got his nickname “Helicopter Ben” because in a speech in 2002 he suggested that helicopter money could always be used to prevent deflation. So we’re going to have helicopter money.

    That doesn’t sound very encouraging.

    Would you ever have thought that, at or near the peak of this cycle interest rates would be at the lowest level since the 1500s? Just imagine what happens to monetary policy in the next downturn.

    What do you think?

    This debt morass has been the principal reason why – notwithstanding how wonderful the stock market has done – this has been the weakest global expansion on record. What happens in the next recession is that the cash flows to service that debt are going to become significantly impaired and we’re going to get a destabilizing default and delinquency cycle. I know, that sounds absolutely horrible, but we’ve hit the end of the road on negative interest rates, and we’ve really hit the end of the road on quantitative easing. So the Central Banks are going to go into a new, non-conventional toolkit called debt monetization. They will lose control of the monetary base and then we will go into a situation where, even with technology and with aging demographics in the industrialized world, we will be talking about inflation again. That might come in the next 18 to 24 months, and gold is going to skyrocket.

    Do you also see attractive investments in the stock market?

    There is not a lot of visibility in terms of earnings. But defense and aerospace is an area where the earnings surprises will be on the upside for the foreseeable future. So you want to participate in that. Every single country is raising its defense budget, and Donald Trump has successfully pressured his NATO allies to ramp up their military spending. For the first time in the post World War II area, we see Japan doing the same thing. We’re not talking about classic warfare. We’re really talking about defense technology and cybersecurity. It’s just like the chart of gold: Even though multiples in this sector have been re-rated because of the earnings visibility, this is a chart you want to buy.

    What about opportunities from a value perspective?

    The energy sector’s market capitalization relative to the overall stock market valuation is the lowest it’s ever been. We’re down to almost a 4% energy share of the S&P 500. That’s lower than it was when the oil price was $11 a barrel back in 1998. We will not all be sitting in driverless electric cars three years from now. Fossil fuels are not going to go away that quickly. At this stage, there is a very firm floor. The energy sector is nowhere close to being priced for where oil prices are right now and there is justification for why the oil price will remain close to where it is for an extended period of time. So in a world where practically every asset class from real estate to corporate credit to equities is extremely expensive, energy offers very deep value. At peaks of the cycle this is where you want to be buying.

    Are there also promising investments globally?

    Sticking to the concept of mean reversion, I want to be taking my profits out of growth and moving into value. Part and parcel of that is taking profits in the US and moving them into other markets that are a lot cheaper and that have lagged well behind. Emerging markets are inherently riskier, but the valuations are very compelling. Moreover, I expect the U.S. dollar to go down rather than go up which is an additional benefit for the emerging market space.

    What countries should investors look at?

    You can’t get much cheaper than Hong Kong. But there are other markets that look pretty attractive. I would say Korea is another market that you would be focusing on as well.

    And how about countries in the developed world?

    The most positive story is Japan. I continue to believe that Prime Minister Shinzō Abe has emerged as a transformational leader. There has been a positive re-rating of Japan’s secular growth rate as a result of his policies. The back of deflation has been broken by the Bank of Japan. So Japan is a market that’s under owned and relatively inexpensive. There is going to be a positive re-rating, not just in terms of Japan’s GDP growth rate. There are also nascent signs of an equity culture being developed that reminds me a lot of what happened in the U.S. in the early 1980s.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 19:45

  • Human Rights Watch: China Is "Existential Threat" To Global Freedom
    Human Rights Watch: China Is “Existential Threat” To Global Freedom

    Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

    Non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch warned Wednesday that if China continues to go unchecked, it threatens to enslave the entire global population and eviscerate freedom for good.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In its annual report, the think tank cautioned that the Communist Chinese government is using technology, censorship and violent repression to such an effective extent that it threatens to fundamentally undermine international human rights forever.

    “Beijing has long suppressed domestic critics. Now the Chinese government is trying to extend that censorship to the rest of the world,” the 652-page report concluded.

    HRW declared that China is now engaged in the “most intense attack” ever on freedom, and that President Xi Jinping’s government is executing “the most brutal and pervasive oppression that China has seen for decades,” including the implementation of a “nightmarish surveillance system” in Xinjiang province.

    The report outlines how China is using its might to systematically silence political dissidents, religious groups, and ethnic minorities.

    The report is so damning that Beijing banned HRW executive director, Kenneth Roth, from traveling to Hong Kong to attend an event to release it. Instead, the report was launched at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

    The report also criticized the UN, other countries, and global corporations for not doing enough to stand up to China, accusing them of  being “willing accomplices,” of “enabling” the crackdown and turning a blind eye to “a dystopian future in which no one is beyond the reach of Chinese censors.”

    Far from being spurned as a global pariah, the Chinese government is courted the world over, its unelected president receiving red-carpet treatment wherever he goes, and the country hosting prestigious events, such as the 2022 Winter Olympics.” Roth noted.

    “The aim is to portray China as open, welcoming, and powerful, even as it descends into ever more ruthless autocratic rule.” he added.

    “While other governments commit serious human rights violations, no other government flexes its political muscles with such vigor and determination to undermine the international human rights standards and institutions that could hold it to account.” Roth further asserted.

    The report also criticized the US, but conceded that “the Trump administration is one government that has been willing to stand up to China, best evidenced by its October 2019 imposition of sanctions on the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau and eight Chinese technology companies for their complicity in human rights violations.”

    The warnings come as Trump continues to push for restrictions on Chinese technology, including the exclusion of Huawei Technologies from the trade deal, and the grounding of more than 1,000 civil drones, owing to fears of espionage because they use Chinese technology.

    Details also continue to emerge regarding claims by an anonymous former Microsoft contractor that the Chinese government is able to access and listen to Skype conversations and audio from Cortana, Microsoft’s voice assistant equivalent of Apple’s Siri.

    “Their foreign bank accounts should be frozen. They should fear prosecution for their crimes.” the HRW report demands.

    “Chinese companies that build and help run detention camps in Xinjiang, and any company that exploits the labor of prisoners or provides the surveillance infrastructure and big data processing, should be exposed and pressured to stop.” the report concludes.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 19:05

    Tags

  • "Make Iran Great Again" – Trump Says "Noble Iranian People" Should "Abandon Terror"
    “Make Iran Great Again” – Trump Says “Noble Iranian People” Should “Abandon Terror”

    If you didn’t expect Trump to kick off the long holiday weekend with some feisty tweets about Iran, then you clearly haven’t been paying attention.

    Bolstered by this week’s twin trade victories and Iran’s embarrassing acknowledgment of culpability in the crash of UIA Flight 752, Present Trump clearly felt the need to respond in kind after news of a rare Friday sermon by the Ayatollah reached the American press.

    During the sermon, the Ayatollah called Trump a “clown,” and warned the Iranian people that Trump’s messages of sympathy were insincere.

    In response, Trump mocked the “Supreme Leader” – whom Trump joked hasn’t “been so Supreme lately” – and gloated about the crumbling Iranian economy, which has sagged under the weight of US sanctions (and now the possibility that UN sanctions might be reinstated, thanks in part to Trump’s threats).

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The president followed that up by tweeting the same message in English and Farsi, with a screenshot of a tweet sent from an account commonly associated with the Iranian regime.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tomorrow, other senior Iranian officials will step in to lob insults at Trump in defense of the Islamic Revolution. And we imagine President Trump will continue to respond in kind.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 18:45

    Tags

  • Ivanka's Sister-In-Law Says She Won't Vote For Trump In 2020
    Ivanka’s Sister-In-Law Says She Won’t Vote For Trump In 2020

    Ivanka Trump’s sister-in-law disclosed on Thursday that she doesn’t plan on voting for President Trump in 2020, and will instead be supporting whomever wins the Democratic nomination at this summer’s convention in Milwaukee.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The “Project Runway” host told Bravo’s Andy Cohen during a taping of “Watch What Happens Live” that she doesn’t feel the need to agree with her family on politics, and that she’s certainly not the only one who has political differences with her family.

    “I’m sure I’m not the only person in this country who does not necessarily agree with their family on politics,” Kloss said.

    During an episode of “Project Runway” earlier this season, one contestant made a snarky remark about Kloss’s ties to the first family. While judges were reviewing a poorly designed dress by one of the show’s contestants, one of Kloss’s fellow judges said he “cannot see Karlie wearing [the dress] anywhere.”

    “Not even to dinner with the Kushners?” the contestant replied snarkily.

    He was immediately chastised for the remark by the judges and told to keep his comments on topic. He was later eliminated.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    When Cohen asked her what she thought of the contestant’s snide remark, Kloss replied: “I was honored to be one of the first memes of the decade” (the clip went viral).

    She also denied that the contestant’s dismissal was in any way related to the remark.

    “Honestly, the real tragedy of this whole thing is that no one is talking about how terrible that dress was,” she added. “That’s why he went home. I would not wear that dress to any dinner.”

    The contestant, meanwhile, told People that he felt like his remark was “misunderstood.”

    Neasloney said he felt “misunderstood” over the episode, People reported. “I felt like we had built a really cool rapport. I was laughing, they were laughing, we were going tit-for-tat. There was shade, there were jokes, and it was really fun.”

    Of course, we could hardly blame Kloss for publicly denying voting for Trump: Despite her immense fame, her career would almost certainly take a hit if she was exposed as a supporter of the “evil” orange man.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 18:45

  • Falling Through The Cracks – America's Poverty Crisis Hits Home
    Falling Through The Cracks – America’s Poverty Crisis Hits Home

    Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

    In the trailer for our recent (and excellent) webinar WTF: What The Fed?!?, I ask:

    What’s it going to take for the pitchforks to come out? How much more does the common man need to be abused before he wakes up and says ‘I’m not going to take anymore!’?

    As discussed in detail in the webinar, our economic and political systems have been captured by monied interests. Industry, government, markets and the judicial system all work for their benefit, not ours.

    The result? An acceleration of wealth and opportunity away from the masses and into the pockets of the top 1% (really, the top 0.1%)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The public is literally being sacrificed so that a tiny number of powerful elites can enjoy “more”.

    Today, I’m not going to make my point with my usual onslaught of charts and data. Instead, I’m going to make it visually.

    We’ve all read the articles about the dying middle class and the explosion of homelessness in recent years.

    Well, I live in northern California, in Sonoma County, about an hour north of San Francisco. It’s quite pleasant up here, with lots of small farms, orchards and vineyards.

    Yes, there are some rich folks here. But nothing like the rest of the Bay Area. Most families are working class.

    The local economy is nothing like the Tech frenzy of Silicon Valley. But it’s better than most places in the country.

    At least, it has been.

    Recently, it’s become impossible not to see the signs that more and more people are falling into poverty. They just can’t afford the rising cost of living, even if they have a job.

    Here where I live, nowhere is this more apparent than the Joe Rodota trail connecting my small town of Sebastopol with the nearby city of Santa Rosa. Over the past year, this previously quiet, clean, bike & pedestrian route has exploded into a sprawling homeless encampment for hundreds of dispossessed people.

    Here’s a 2-minute video I took of the encampment this afternoon (h/t to my daughter Charlotte for manning the camera as I drove):

    YouTube is full of similar shocking video of much larger encampments across the West Coast, from Los Angeles to Seattle. Here in the Bay Area, even our “jewel” cities of San Francisco and Berkeley are becoming overrun by an exploding homeless problem and the mental health, sanitation, addiction, safety and crime issues associated with it.

    It’s a major issue with no clear fix in sight. And folks, it’s only going to get worse. Far worse.

    Remember, we’re in the 11th year of the longest economic expansion in US history. The markets are at record highs. The official reported unemployment rate is at a record low.

    When the next recession hits it will be like pouring jet fuel on this fire.

    Homelessness in California has doubled in just the past few years and our social support systems are already overwhelmed. What’s it going to be like if mass layoffs cause the homeless population to quadruple in a single year?

    I remain amazed at how difficult life is for the millions of working poor in America. What harsh conditions they suffer just to hold a job, sleep under (any) shelter, find food, and wake up the next day to do it all over again. Day after day, always worried that sickness, injury, misfortune or theft is going to jeopardize the little you have.

    Once you’ve dropped into poverty, especially if you have family dependents, it is damn hard to extricate yourself from it. Regardless of how hard you apply yourself.

    If you have the time, I recommend watching this 45-minute documentary on US poverty produced by a German public broadcast service. Currently more than 40 million Americans live beneath the poverty line — that’s twice as many as in 1970.

    Viewing our country through their outsider’s eye is a stark warning that we ignore this metastasizing  social epidemic at our peril:

    Back to my question at the start of this post: What’s it going to take?

    How many more millions will fall into poverty? How much more abuse will continue until of those of us paying attention, with growing fear at the social implications and perhaps at our own financial vulnerability, actively revolt against the elite-centric status quo?

    For thousands of years, history has warned us that such social imbalance will not stand:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Are we going to listen in time?


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 18:25

  • US Begins Airport Screenings After Second Patient With SARS-Like Pneumonia Dies In China
    US Begins Airport Screenings After Second Patient With SARS-Like Pneumonia Dies In China

    The US will begin screening airline passengers beginning Friday after a SARS-like pneumonia outbreak in central China has claimed a second life after a 69-year-old man died on Wednesday, according to the Straits Times

    “To further protect the health of the American public during the emergence of this novel coronavirus, CDC is beginning entry screening at three ports of entry,” said CDC official Martin Cetron, adding “We’re expecting that the screening over the next couple of weeks could include as many as 5000 people” starting Friday night.

    The three airports are; San Francisco International, New York’s JFK, and Los Angeles International.

    The second death from the new coronavirus occurred at the Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital in the Hubei province. He had been ill approximately two weeks before experiencing multi-organ system failure, according to Bloomberg, citing a Thursday statement by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As of Friday, the city has reported 45 cases of the coronavirus, known as 2019-nCoV. According to the report, five patients are in critical condition, twelve have been cured and discharged, and two have died.

    Authorities in Japan reported a case Thursday in a resident of Kanagawa prefecture aged in his 30s, who had spent time with an infected person in Wuhan. That’s the second time someone outside China was found to be infected with the novel coronavirus, which has captured international attention because of similarities with the one that sparked Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, 17 years ago.

    Unlike SARS, which killed almost 800 people, the new virus doesn’t appear to spread easily between people. Much remains to be understood about the new coronavirus, which was first identified in China earlier this month, the World Health Organization said in a statement Thursday in response to the case in Japan. –Bloomberg

    It is unknown how the virus is spread, however it is believed to be concentrated among a Wuhan fish market which carries other meat as well.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 18:05

  • Woman Arrested In India For Hiding 3lbs Of Gold In Her Rectum… & Other Absurdities
    Woman Arrested In India For Hiding 3lbs Of Gold In Her Rectum… & Other Absurdities

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, your finances, and your prosperity.

    Feds steal $80,000 life savings from a confused elderly man

    79 year old Terry Rolin kept his entire life savings in cash at his home in Pittsburgh. Inside a tupperware food container, he had saved $82,373 over his life working as a railroad engineer.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When he started to become confused at times, he realized his mental health was in decline. So he gave the cash to his daughter Rebecca and asked her to open a joint bank account with him, to keep his money safe.

    Rebecca had an early morning flight to catch with no time to visit a bank, so she took the cash with her after checking online and confirming that it is perfectly legal to carry large amounts of cash on an airplane.

    But the TSA became suspicious after seeing the cash at a security checkpoint. They alerted the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

    The DEA agent intimidated Rebecca into calling her father to confirm the story. Awakened from sleep, he sounded confused–the whole reason for the joint account in the first place.

    So the DEA agent told Rebecca their stories didn’t match, and he seized every penny of the old man’s life savings.

    Terry and Rebecca were never charged with a crime– they were victims of Civil Asset Forfeiture.

    And unfortunately, horror stories like these are not isolated incidents. Now Terry and Rebecca are part of a class action lawsuit for innocent airline passengers who have never been convicted or even charged with a crime  to have their stolen cash returned.

    Click here to read the full story.

    *  *  *

    Woman arrested in India for concealing 1.2kg of gold in her rectum

    People don’t trust their government in India, a country legendary for graft and corruption. This is especially true when it comes to money.

    A few years ago, for example, India’s government announced that certain cash notes would be cancelled and no longer considered valid currency with IMMEDIATE effect.

    This was debilitating for tens of millions of people across India’s poverty-stricken villages who have no access to bank accounts and rely on cash transactions.

    It’s one of the many reasons why GOLD is so popular in India. But the government has plenty of restrictions for precious metals as well… prompting a surge in illegal gold smuggling into the country (according to India’s Director of Revenue Intelligence).

    Just last week a woman was arrested in New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi Airport for smuggling an unbelievable 1.2 kilograms (2.65 pounds) of gold in her rectum, worth about USD $60,000.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when people are forced to do something so drastic just to make sure they have an honest currency that can’t be manipulated by bureaucrats.

    India’s government is finally starting to wake up to this reality and is reportedly ‘considering’ loosening some of the restrictions.

    Click here to read the full story.

    *  *  *

    City officials shut down restaurant because it got shot at

    Rita Johnson owns a restaurant in Saginaw, Michigan.

    One night when the eatery was rented out to a private party, it became the victim of a random shooting. Suspects shot at the building and ran away.

    Luckily, no one was hurt.

    The owner and the guests had no idea why they were targeted, nor by whom.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But rather than find the criminals, the city revoked Rita’s permit and shut down the restaurant.

    Wait a minute– wasn’t Rita the victim?

    Yes. But the city’s excuse was that the restaurant was the site of criminal activity. The town also cited “Failure to maintain adequate security. . .”

    This is pretty ironic coming from a city government that charges taxpayers a bunch of money for basic services, like, oh I don’t know, police??? Seems like it would have been the Saginaw Police Department’s job to maintain adequate security for taxpaying business owners.

    Click here to read the full story.

    *  *  *

    US Supreme Court declines to hear “Free the Nipple Case”

    A New Hampshire woman was arrested after performing yoga topless on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee.

    This occurred in the city of Laconia in May of 2016 (presumably on one of the handful of days each year that it’s warm enough to go topless in New Hampshire).

    Two other women were subsequently arrested for a bare-chested “Free the Nipple” protest after the first arrest.

    The town’s ordinance bans women from going topless, but allows men the freedom. Yet the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was not a violation of the 14th amendment’s requirement that laws be applied evenly.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, leaving the ban in place.

    Click here to read the full story.

    *  *  *

    And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 17:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 17th January 2020

  • Turkey's Underwhelming Invasion Of Libya
    Turkey’s Underwhelming Invasion Of Libya

    Via Southfront.org,

    In early 2020, Libya became one of the main hot points in the Greater Middle East with stakes raised by Turkey’s decision to launch a military operation there…

    On January 5, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that Turkey had sent troops to Libya to support the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA). No Turkish soldiers will reportedly participate in direct fighting. Instead, they will create an operation center and coordinate operations. Erdogan pointed that “right now”, there will be “different units serving as a combatant force.” He didn’t say who exactly these troops would be, but it is apparent that these are members of Turkish-backed Syrian militant groups and Turkey-linked private military contractors.

    Ankara started an active deployment of members of pro-Turkish Syrian militant groups in Libya in December 2019. So far, over 600 Turkish-backed Syrian fighters have arrived. According to media reports, the officially dispatched Turkish troops included military advisers, technicians, electronic warfare and air defense specialists. Their total number is estimated at around 40-60 personnel.

    A day after the Erdogan announcement, on January 6, the defense of the GNA collapsed in Sirte and the GNA’s rival, the Libyan National Army (LNA), took control of the town. Several pro-GNA units from Sirte publicly defected to the LNA with weapons and military equipment, including at least 6 armoured vehicles. With the loss of Sirte, only two large cities – Tripoli and Misrata – formally remained in the hands of the GNA. Misrata and its Brigades in fact remain a semi-independent actor operating under the GNA banner.

    From January 7 to January 12, when the sides agreed on a temporary ceasefire proposed in a joint statement of the Turkish and Russian presidents, the LNA continued offensive operations against GNA forces near Tripoli and west of Sirte capturing several positions there. The GNA once again demonstrated that it is unable to take an upper hand in the battle against forces of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

    The GNA formally requested “air, ground and sea” military support from Turkey on December 26th, 2019, in the framework of the military cooperation deal signed by the sides in November. On January 2, 2020, the Turkish Parliament approved the bill allowing troop deployment in Libya. This move did not change the situation strategically. Even before the formal approval, Ankara already was engaged in the conflict. It sent large quantities of weapons and military equipment, including “BMC Kirpi” armoured vehicles, deployed Bayraktar TB2 unmanned combat aerial vehicles at airfields near Tripoli and Misrata, and sent operators and trainers in order to assist GNA forces.

    Turkey could increase military supplies, deploy additional private military contractors, military advisers and special forces units, but it has no safe place to deploy own air group to provide the GNA with a direct air support like Russia did for pro-Assad forces in Syria. Approximately 90% of Libya is under the LNA control. Tripoli and Misrata airports are in a strike distance for the LNA. Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad and Sudan refuse to play any direct role in the conflict, while the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is still too far away. Egypt, alongside with the UAE and Russia, is a supporter of the LNA. Therefore, deployment there is out of question.

    Turkey operates no aircraft carriers. Its TCG Anadolu amphibious assault ship can be configured as a light aircraft carrier, but the warship isn’t in service yet. It is unclear how Ankara will be able to provide the GNA with an extensive air support without endangering its own aircraft by deploying them close to the combat zone.

    Turkey could deploy a naval task force to support the GNA. Nonetheless, this move is risky, if one takes into account the hostile political environment, with Egypt, Cyprus, the UAE and Greece are strictly against any such actions. Additionally, this deployment will go against the interests of other NATO member states such as France and Italy that see the expansion of the Turkish influence as a direct threat to their vital economic interests, especially in the oil business. Warships near the Libyan coast will be put in jeopardy from modern anti-ship measures. Yemen’s Houthis repeatedly proved that missiles could be quite an effective tool to combat a technologically advanced enemy. In the worst-case scenario, the Turkish Navy can suffer notable losses, and the risk of this is too real to tangible to overlook.

    Another unlikely option is a large-scale ground operation that will require an amphibious landing. Turkey has several landing ships, the biggest of which are the two Bayraktar-class amphibious warfare ships (displacement – 7,254 tons). There are also the Osman Gazi-class landing ship (3,700 tons), two Sarucabey-class landing ships (2,600 tons). Other landing ships, albeit active, are outdated. With 5 modern landing ships, any landing operation will endanger Turkish forces involved, keeping in mind the complex diplomatic environment and the LNA that will use all means and measures that it has to prevent such a scenario.

    In these conditions, the most likely scenario of Turkey’s military operation was the following:

    • Deployment of a limited number of specialists;

    • Public employment of private military contractors’

    • Redeployment of members of pro-Turkish proxy groups from Syria to Libya;

    • Diplomatic and media campaign to secure Ankara’s vital interests and find a political solution that would prevent the LNA’s final push to capture Tripoli. Turkey sees the Libyan foothold and the memorandum on maritime boundaries signed with the GNA as the core factors needed to secure own national interests in the Eastern Mediterranean.

    This is exactly what Ankara did. On January 8, Turkish and Russian Presidents released a joint statement in which they called for reaching cease-fire in Libya by midnight of January 12. The joint statement emphasized the worsening situation in Libya and its negative impact on “the security and stability of Libya’s wider neighborhood, the entire Mediterranean region, as well as the African continent, triggering irregular migration, further spread of weapons, terrorism and other criminal activities including illicit trafficking,” and called for the resumption of a political dialogue to settle the conflict. The LNA initially rejected the ceasefire initiative, but then accepted it. This signals that key LNA supporters agreed on the format proposed by the Turkish and Russian leaders. On January 13, the delegations of the GNA, the LNA, and Turkey arrived in Moscow for talks on a wider ceasefire deal. The deal was not reached and clashes near Tripoli resumed on January 14.

    Russian and Turkish interests are deeply implicated. Some experts speculated the contradictions within the Libyan conflict could become a stone that will destroy the glass friendship between Ankara and Moscow. However, the joint Russian-Turkish diplomatic efforts demonstrate that the sides found a kind of understanding and possibly agreed on the division of spheres of influence. If the Moscow negotiations format allows de-escalating the situation and putting an end to the terrorism threat and violence in Libya, it will become another success of the practical approach employed by the both powers in their cooperation regarding the Middle East questions.

    The 2011 NATO intervention led by France, Italy and the United States destroyed the Libyan statehood in order to get control of the country’s energy resources. Now, Egypt, the UAE, Russia and Turkey are driving France, Italy and the US out of Libya in order to put an end to the created chaos and secure own interests.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 02:00

  • The Virginia Gun Rights Conflict: Best And Worst Case Scenarios
    The Virginia Gun Rights Conflict: Best And Worst Case Scenarios

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    In my article ‘Trump Impeachment And The Civil War Scenario’, I warned that conservatives and leftists are being pushed to the brink of a shooting war using various methods of social manipulation and 4th Gen warfare, and that this conflict, if dictated by gatekeepers of the false Left/Right paradigm, would only benefit establishment elites in the long run. Internal division among the public is designed to keep us at each other’s throats while losing focus on the real enemies.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hard line democrats and the social justice cult are merely a symptom of the disease, they are not the source of the disease. However, I also acknowledge that the rift between conservatives and the political left has become so extreme that reconciliation is almost impossible. War might be unavoidable, and the globalists love it. If they can pretend like they had nothing to do with creating tensions, and if conservatives are so blinded by anger against Democrats that they refuse to admit that some of their own political leaders (including Trump) have been co-opted, the elites win.

    The danger in any civil war is that BOTH sides end up being manipulated and controlled, and that the situation is maneuvered towards an outcome that only serves the interests of a select few.

    Virginia may be a test bed, a trial run for a nationwide conflagration, and if it does hit a point where state officials compel a violent response from the citizenry, then it is important that liberty advocates remain vigilant and steer clear of incompetent or controlled leaders. It is also important that they remember there is a much larger agenda at play here; the Democrats may be useful idiots fueling that agenda, but most of them are oblivious to their role. Our fight is not with the Democrats, our fight is with the globalists that influence them; the same globalists that are trying to influence us.

    First and foremost we have to address the propaganda, because all wars begin first in the public consciousness.  The current situation in Virginia remains a battle of political rhetoric and “fluid” interpretations of the law. Here are the arguments I’ve seen from the political left so far on the issue of 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries:

    Leftists argue that sanctuary county resolutions are “purely symbolic” and have no force of law behind them.

    This is a rather naive (perhaps deliberately naive) position, as it ignores the fundamentals. The force of law is either compelled by conscience, or it is compelled by violence. The law itself is meaningless without these two factors.  If groups of citizens choose not to follow a law because they find it morally reprehensible, there is nothing the state can do except try to frighten them into compliance with the threat of violence. The concept of a law by itself has no energy, and claiming that something is “right” because it is now “law” is not a valid argument.

    In the case of anti-gun laws in Virginia, the VAST majority of counties in the state and the people in those counties have made it clear that they will not comply. The leftists have completely ignored this fact by simply saying “They have to comply because the law says so…” This is the type of attitude that leads to war.

    Leftists argue that state laws supersede county authority and there is no legal standing for sanctuary resolutions.

    The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that constitutional protections provided by the Bill of Rights supersede ALL other laws. It does not matter if attempts are being made by state governments or the federal government to degrade constitutional rights, the people are empowered to refuse and fight against ANY laws which violate constitutional rights.

    For example, Democrats often bring up the history of Jim Crow Laws as a rationale for Federal intervention in the legal affairs of states. Jim Crow laws were segregation laws passed by state governments, and in many cases there was resistance on a public level to these laws. Democrats like to cite Jim Crow laws whenever conservatives argue for states rights and 10th Amendment nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. They have conveniently memory-holed the issue whenever state laws are working in favor of their agenda.

    The bottom line is this: The constitution and Bill of Rights take precedence over all other laws in the US, and if Democrats are going to use legal technicality as their foundation for draconian gun control measures, then they really have no leg to stand on. If their argument is that citizens and counties have no legal right to nullify state laws no matter how immoral or unconstitutional, then what would they say if a state government brought back Jim Crow, or legalized slavery? Virginia’s gun control efforts are no different.

    Leftists assert that new laws in Virginia are “standard” because similar laws have been passed in other states.

    This is the totalitarian tip-toe at work. Once an unconstitutional law is passed in California, New York or Illinois, this therefore means that the laws have become “standard” and are thus acceptable.

    An unconstitutional law is an unconstitutional law. It does not matter how many states pass such a law and proclaim it normal or standard. The people of Virginia have announced en masse that they have no intention of following new gun control laws. The people have spoken, over 90% of counties in Virginia have passed 2nd Amendment resolutions with the support of the citizenry. Democrats gaining seats in an election does not give them the power to deny constitutional rights to Virginians.

    Beyond this, the Virginia laws are nowhere near standard. Clearly, Virginia is being used as a testing ground for Red Flag laws in particular, which are the most concerning. Red Flag laws allow gun confiscation without due process based on ambiguous accusations backed often by zero evidence; it is prosecution and punishment without representation or defense. Red Flag gun laws are a means by which the state can violate your rights while circumventing due process.

    (I will make note here that leftists aren’t the only people that are pushing for Red Flag laws.  Donald Trump is a vocal supporter of them as well)

    The numerous laws Virginia’s government hopes to implement set the stage for the incremental removal of all gun rights.  Currently, at least four of these laws have been advanced by the Virginia Senate Judiciary committee and many more are expected to be implemented by the end of this month.

    They are pushing the envelope to see how far they can move the boundary of what is “standard” when it comes to anti-gun laws. The people of Virginia know this is the agenda. It has ALWAYS been the leftist agenda (not to mention a globalist agenda) to seek out total disarmament of the population while claiming they only want “reasonable safeguards”. This is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.

    Leftists argue that law enforcement authorities that refuse to enforce new gun laws risk losing their “official immunity”.

    I’m not sure that “official immunity” has anything to do with the enforcement of gun laws; it is meant to protect LEOs from civil litigation while conducting normal ministerial duties. This sounds more like a thinly veiled threat against county officials and law enforcement who refuse to comply. It is also an empty threat.

    County officials cannot be compelled by the state to actively enforce unconstitutional gun control laws, nor can the state force a county to set aside funds for such an effort. In the case of county sheriffs, these are officials elected by the people of the county, and they answer to those people first, and state government second. County officials can be punished for breaking the law, but they cannot be punished for not enforcing the law to an arbitrary degree that the state sees as acceptable.

    Leftists are pursuing other more aggressive avenues to enforce new gun laws.

    Representatives of the state government have threatened the possible use of the national guard to force counties to comply. They have made a budget proposal for $6.5 million to form a new “sex offense and firearms investigation unit”, which they deny will be used as a goon squad to enter into sanctuary counties and enforce new gun laws by circumventing local law enforcement, much like the federal government uses the FBI or ATF to circumvent state authorities when it pleases them.

    Finally, the Virginia government is also seeking at least $250,000 to be allocated to prisons, and this is directly tied to the new gun laws and the people that will be imprisoned by them.

    The governor of Virginia claims that he supports grandfathering in existing guns as long as they are registered in the new state database.  Of course, gun owners know from history that the first step towards total confiscation is forced registration.   The mainstream media has suggested that anyone who thinks these budget changes are in preparation for arresting gun owners is a “conspiracy theorist”.

    They had better be right, because the government of Virginia should know that if they did compel such actions it would be a detrimental mistake.

    The national guard of Virginia is made up of the citizens of Virginia, and many of these people may not comply either. If they do, or if the state establishes an enforcement arm to target individual citizens to make examples out of them, the most likely outcome is that people will defend themselves and their constitutional rights. People on both sides might be hurt in the process.

    The question then arises: Are these laws worth dying for? I can say with some authority as a long time activist in the liberty movement that the majority of conservatives are willing to risk death to protect their rights. Are state authorities willing to risk death to enforce unconstitutional laws? Because that is where this situation is headed…

    Leftists claim that 2nd Amendment sanctuaries are not comparable to illegal immigrant sanctuaries.

    Leftists are correct, the two situations are NOT the same.  Illegal immigration is not a constitutionally protected right, and gun ownership is.

    I find it fascinating that not long ago leftists and statist Republicans were arguing fervently against the idea that states and municipalities could nullify federal law.  During the 10th Amendment and nullification uprisings that led to such confrontations as Bundy Ranch, these people viciously attacked anyone that supported sovereignty activism.  They used to claim that the federal government was the alpha and the omega; the final word.  Now, suddenly, leftists have pulled a u-turn and are attempting to assert sovereignty rights for illegals in sanctuary states and cities.  Again, illegals are not afforded constitutional protections, gun owners are.

    One could try to make a moral argument in favor of protecting illegal immigrants from deportation, but there is no legal argument.  And, I could easily present a far superior moral argument against illegal immigration than they ever could in favor of it.  I would have to write a whole other article to cover this issue in depth, but it is important to point out the double standards and hypocrisy inherent in the leftist position.

    Leftists argue that this is only about Virginia.

    Conservatives don’t see it that way. A conflict in Virginia will likely attract thousands of people from outside the state, because the view will be that the line is being drawn there.  It may also spread beyond Virginia into other states with unconstitutional gun control measures.

    Now, it’s important for conservatives, especially those that actually live in Virginia, to understand that there will be conmen and shysters who will show up out of nowhere and try to exploit the situation to elevate their own careers or public image. They will try to make as much money as they can while shamelessly self promoting. They will pretend to help while offering substandard advice and substandard training. And if the manure hits the fan, these guys will suddenly disappear as quickly as they arrived.

    There will also be people who will try to steer the conflict towards a left vs right paradigm, as I noted earlier. Sanctuary counties should maintain local leadership and local representation in these matters to avoid being manipulated. If people outside the state want to help, then they should be fine with doing this under the supervision and management of the locals.

    The best possible scenario would be that the state government of Virginia realizes that it’s not worth it to try to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, and that the risks are far too high to manage. They would abandon such endeavors and recognize that counties will not comply even if they try to apply leverage to them.

    My suspicion is that the state will try to enforce laws quietly and incrementally at first, arresting a handful of violators and activists over the course of several months to make examples out of them while test running Red Flag laws for backdoor confiscation.  They will wait for the activists to quiet down and go home.

    The worst case scenario is that this is an establishment beta test for the rest of the country, and that they may WANT to start a conflict in the hopes that this will spread into a national civil war.  This kind of scheme would require accelerated and violent enforcement of gun laws by Democrats in Virginia to illicit an immediate response.  If this is the case, and a wider conflict is triggered, conservatives MUST NOT lose sight of the bigger picture. The globalists should be the focus of our ire; the democrats are being used. A conflict based only on political division will mean defeat for us all, and a win for the elites.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 01/17/2020 – 00:05

  • 'Mendacity, Hubris & Lies' Defined US Nation-Building In Afghanistan, Watchdog Tells Congress
    ‘Mendacity, Hubris & Lies’ Defined US Nation-Building In Afghanistan, Watchdog Tells Congress

    A top official overseeing US aid in Afghanistan, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction John Sopko, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday, and gave a blunt insider account of the many damning issues which have perpetuated America’s longest war laid out in the recently declassified Afghanistan Papers

    He admitted that top officials had been caught lying about the true state of the war at every turn. “We have created an incentive to almost require people to lie,” Sopko told the Congressional hearing

    “There’s an odor of mendacity throughout the Afghanistan issue,” Sopko testified further. “Mendacity and hubris,” he added. Explaining the fundamental why behind the mass deception, he described a situation where those executing the war were incentivized to paint a rosy picture of how things were going to the politicians and top brass in Washington (certainly nothing new in US foreign policy, especially going back to Vietnam).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Special Inspector General for Afghanistan reconstruction John Sopko, via Stars & Stripes.

    “You create from the bottom up an incentive because of short time frames – we’re there for six months, nine months, or a year – to show success,” Sopko said. “That gets reported up the chain and before we know it the president is talking about success that doesn’t exist.”

    One top official, former White House Afghan war czar Douglas Lute under Bush and Obama, had previously confessed as part of The Washington Post published Afghanistan Papers, “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – we didn’t know what we were doing.” He underscored that “we didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking” after the 2001 invasion.

    The documents consistently revealed the Pentagon’s manipulation on a mass scale of statistics fed to the public in order to hide the true disastrous nature of the war; as well as US leaders constantly “turning a blind eye” to large scale theft of US tax payer dollars by corrupt Afghan officials.

    US aid was looted “with impunity” according to the released documents, and provide undeniable evidence that top defense officials knew years of rosy public statements were a mountain of lies.

    The Washington Post obtained the internal Pentagon report after over 400 people close to the decision-making process were interviewed as part of the prior internal DoD investigation; however among those 366 names were redacted, given that as more damning testimony was given, the Inspector General deemed they should be treated as ‘whistleblowers’ and informants.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    John Sopko in prior 2017 testimony before the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, via Stars & Stripes.

    Among the more shocking elements of Sopko’s testimony is his outlining that US stupidity and the ‘law of unintended consequences’ actually helped the resurgence of the Taliban, especially when vast sums of money were handed out unaccountably for the sake of maintaining “security”.

    “The coalition paid warlords to provide security and, in many cases, to run provincial and district administrations, on the assumption that the United States would eventually hold those warlords to account when they committed acts of corruption or brutality,” he said. “That accounting rarely took place — and the abuses committed by coalition aligned warlords drove many Afghans into the arms of the resurgent Taliban.”

    And this further in another section of the testimony:

    “The Afghan military – and particularly the Afghan police – has been a hopeless nightmare and a disaster,” Sopko told lawmakers on Wednesday. “And part of it is because we rotate units through that aren’t trained to do the work, and they’re gone in six-to-nine months. I don’t blame the military, but you can’t bring in a Black Hawk pilot to train an Afghan policeman on how to do police work. And that’s what we were doing — we’re still doing.”

    And further, when pressed by Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California what an overall report card score for US nation-building in Afghanistan would earn — perhaps a D- or an F the Congressman offered  Sopko answered: “E. You showed up for class. That’s it.”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 23:45

    Tags

  • The Robots Are Coming, And They're Going To Take Over Millions Of Jobs
    The Robots Are Coming, And They’re Going To Take Over Millions Of Jobs

    Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

    When we get to a point where literally just about everything can be done more cheaply and more efficiently by robots, the elite won’t have any use for the rest of us at all.

    For most of human history, the wealthy have needed the poor to do the work that is necessary to run their businesses and make them even wealthier. In this day and age we like to call ourselves “employees”, but in reality we are their servants. Some of us may be more well paid than others, but the vast majority of us are expending our best years serving their enterprises so that we can pay the bills. Unfortunately, that paradigm is rapidly changing, and many of the jobs that humans are doing today will be done by robots in the not too distant future. In fact, millions of human workers have already been displaced, and as you will see below experts are warning that the job losses are likely to greatly accelerate in the years to come.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Competition with technology is one of the reasons why wage growth has been so stagnant over the past couple of decades. The only way it makes sense for an employer to hire you is if you can do a job less expensively than some form of technology can do it.

    As a result, close to two-thirds of the jobs that have been created in the United States over the past couple of decades have been low wage jobs, and the middle class is being steadily hollowed out.

    But as robots continue to become cheaper and more efficient, even our lowest paying jobs will be vanishing in enormous numbers.

    For example, it is being reported that executives at Walmart plan to greatly increase the size of their “robot army”…

    Walmart Inc.’s robot army is growing. The world’s largest retailer will add shelf-scanning robots to 650 more U.S. stores by the end of the summer, bringing its fleet to 1,000. The six-foot-tall Bossa Nova devices, equipped with 15 cameras each, roam aisles and send alerts to store employees’ handheld devices when items are out of stock, helping to solve a vexing problem that costs retailers nearly a trillion dollars annually, according to researcher IHL Group.

    In addition to scanning shelves, Walmart already has a whole host of robots doing such things as scrubbing floors, unloading trucks and gathering grocery orders

    The new robots, designed by San Francisco-based Bossa Nova Robotics Inc., join the ranks of Walmart’s increasingly automated workforce which also includes devices to scrub floors, unload trucks and gather online-grocery orders.

    Meanwhile, Walmart has been testing “a new employee structure” which is intended to “cut down the size of its store management staff”

    Walmart is testing out a new employee structure within its stores in an attempt to cut down the size of its store management staff.

    The nation’s biggest employer is looking to see if it can have fewer midlevel store managers overseeing workers, with these managers seeing both their responsibilities and their pay increase.

    So the employees that survive will get a “pay increase” to go with a huge increase in responsibility, but what about all the others that are having their jobs eliminated?

    Don’t worry, because in an interview about this new initiative one Walmart executive assured us that their employees “like smaller teams”

    “Associates like smaller teams, and they like having a connection with a leader. They want something they can own and to know if they are winning or losing every day. And today that does not always happen,” Drew Holler, U.S. senior vice president of associate experience, said in an interview.

    Today, Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the United States by a wide margin.

    But these coming changes will ultimately mean a lot more robot workers and a lot less human workers.

    Of course countless other heartless corporations are implementing similar measures. And considering the fact that one recent survey found that 97 percent of U.S. CFOs believe that a recession is coming in 2020, we are likely to see a “thinning of the ranks” in company after company as this year rolls along.

    Sadly, even if there was no economic downturn coming we would continue to lose jobs to robots. According to one study, a whopping 45 percent of our current jobs “can be automated”…

    Here’s the truth: Robots are already starting to take jobs from hourly human workers, and it’s going to continue. Research from McKinsey found that 45% of current jobs can be automated. We need to stop avoiding the situation and create real solutions to help displaced workers.

    In this day and age, no worker is safe.

    I know someone that gave his heart and soul to a big corporation for many years, and then one day he was called into the office when he arrived for work and he was out of a job by lunch.

    He hadn’t done anything wrong at all. It is just that his heartless corporate bosses had decided to eliminate his position throughout the entire company.

    If you think that they actually care about you, then you are just fooling yourself.

    Unfortunately, the job losses are just going to keep accelerating. In fact, it is being projected that approximately 20 million manufacturing jobs around the globe could be taken over by robots by the year 2030

    Robots could take over 20 million manufacturing jobs around the world by 2030, economists claimed Wednesday.

    According to a new study from Oxford Economics, within the next 11 years there could be 14 million robots put to work in China alone.

    And as wealthy executives lay off low wage workers in staggering numbers, that will make the growing gap between the rich and the poor even worse

    “As a result of robotization, tens of millions of jobs will be lost, especially in poorer local economies that rely on lower-skilled workers. This will therefore translate to an increase in income inequality,” the study’s authors said.

    The good news is that the full extent of this ominous scenario is not likely to completely play out. The bad news is that this is because our society is rapidly moving toward complete and utter collapse.

    I wish that there was an easy solution to this growing problem.

    In a free market system, should anyone be trying to mandate that employers must hire human workers?

    But if millions upon millions of men and women can’t feed their families because they don’t have jobs, that will create the sort of social nightmare that we cannot even imagine right now.

    This is something that all of the 2020 presidential candidates should be talking about, because this is a crisis that is spinning out of control, and it is getting worse with each passing day.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 23:25

    Tags

  • "What Is Palestine?" Bizarre 'Jeopardy!' Moment Sparks Israel-Palestine Storm
    “What Is Palestine?” Bizarre ‘Jeopardy!’ Moment Sparks Israel-Palestine Storm

    The Associated Press reported on possibly the most bizarre and egregious “Jeopardy!” geopolitical gaffe in the game show’s history this week:

    Producers of the game show “Jeopardy!” have apologized for a clue that waded into political hot water involving Israeli control of the West Bank, saying an incorrect version of the show was sent to television stations.

    The show aired last Friday. Contestants were being asked about the location of well-known churches, and when the clue “Built in 300s AD, the Church of the Nativity” was offered, Katie Needle answered, “What is Palestine?” Without hesitation Alex Trebek said she was incorrect with her opponent being awarded $200 for his ‘correct’ answer of “what is Israel?”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The show immediately faced backlash and controversy given the ancient Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, site of Jesus’ birthplace, is located in the West Bank. The AP reports:

    “Jeopardy!” producers, in a statement on the show’s website Monday, said they realized the question was problematic and replaced it with another. The outcome of the game was not affected.

    However, due to what “Jeopardy!” called human error, the uncorrected version of the pre-taped show was sent to television stations by mistake.

    “We regret the error and we will make sure this never happens again,” the statement said.

    Upon being told she was flat out wrong, the woman’s face appeared shocked and dismayed, but she seemed to immediately grasp that the show came firmly down on the ‘pro-Israel’ side of the question. 

    Though internationally the West Bank is considered “occupied Palestinian territory,” it remains that the ancient city of Bethlehem itself is self-administered under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its mayor and top local government officials are traditionally Palestinian Christians

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The city itself is not necessarily even directly occupied by Israeli troops on a regular basis (as East Jerusalem is for example), but is cut off from other West Bank settlements by a massive Israeli security checkpoint along the main road leading into Bethlehem, so that Palestinians often can’t even travel to nearby Jerusalem or other places. 

    The clip showing the question immediately went viral on social media, with pro-Palestinian activist groups slamming the overt bias to the charged and controversial question. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The ancient Orthodox Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, built under Emperor Constantine in the 300’s.

    “In accordance with our rules and in the interest of fairness, we voided the clue and threw it out. We restored Katie’s and Jack’s scores to what they were prior to the clue. The outcome of the game was not affected. We then continued the game with this replacement clue,” the Jeopardy statement added.

    Speaking more broadly of US foreign policy, President Trump in 2018 added fresh fuel to the Israeli-Palestine conflict by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and by formally recognizing the city as Israel’s capital. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 23:05

  • 45-Year-Old Man Caught With Child Pornography Says He 'Identifies' As An 8-Year-Old Girl
    45-Year-Old Man Caught With Child Pornography Says He ‘Identifies’ As An 8-Year-Old Girl

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    A 45-year-old man caught with child pornography had a novel defense in court; he claimed he identified as an 8-year-old girl.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Facing up to 20 years in prison, Joseph Gobrick told a judge in Michigan that he had a First Amendment right to view child porn on his computer and that he was in fact an 8-year-old girl, so it didn’t matter anyway.

    “I’ve always been an 8-year-old girl, and even in my drawings and fantasies I’m always an 8-year-old girl,” said Gobrick.

    After his claim that he was in fact a child and therefore immune from prosecution didn’t impress the judge, Gobrick resorted to implying that his oppressors were behaving like Nazis.

    “Under the law, Auschwitz was legal,” he said, arguing, “What you’re doing here is wrong, just as Auschwitz was.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “If Gobrick can identify as a female, why can’t he identify as a female of whatever age he chooses?” asks Matt Walsh.

    “At least a man who “feels like a child” can rightly point out that he was once a child, so he has some frame of reference for judging these feelings. And at least it does make sense, in the case of certain mental disabilities, to say that an adult “has the brain of a child.”

    “None of this vindicates Gobrick to any extent at all, but my point is that transageism is actually more credible and makes more sense than transgenderism. It’s still bogus, but slightly less so. Age does change, after all. I will not be a 33-year-old man forever. But I will be a man forever. If my sex is a fluid characteristic, how much more fluid must my age be?”

    Who knows, the way western society is heading, Gobrick’s excuse may well be accepted by courts in 5-10 years.

    If Rachel Dolezal can identify as black and Caitlyn Jenner can identify as a woman having been a man for over 50 years, why not?

    *  *  *

    My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 22:45

  • "The World Is Watching": Five Countries Demand Iran Pay Reparations To Crash Victims' Families
    “The World Is Watching”: Five Countries Demand Iran Pay Reparations To Crash Victims’ Families

    Perhaps this is why some Iranian sources tried to do an about-face and blame the crash of UIA Flight 752 on an American cyberattack: Canada and four other nations whose nationals died in the crash are demanding that Iran accept responsibility and – more importantly – compensate the victims’ families. 

    According to Reuters, Canada, Ukraine, Sweden, Afghanistan and Britain said Iran should hold a “thorough, independent and transparent international investigation open to grieving nations” in a joint statement released following a meeting in London between officials from the various countries.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois-Philippe Champagne

    The Boeing 737-800 was struck by two missiles on Jan. 8 just minutes after taking off from the international airport in Tehran, en route to Kiev. Iran admitted on Saturday that a military missile operator fired on the plane in error, believing it might be a cruise missile (the plane was notably shot down just hours after Iran launched a counterattack on an American base). All 176 passengers & crew on board the plane, including 57 Canadians, were killed.

    To be sure, ost of those traveling on the flight were Iranian students headed back to school abroad, hence the theme of the public outrage that followed Iran’s admission of guilt.

    Iran has arrested those it says were responsible for the mistake.

    The five countries have also asked Iran to identify victims with “dignity and transparency” and work with domestic officials and victims’ families as they seek the return of their loved ones’ remains.

    “The eyes of the international community are on Iran today. I think that Iran has a choice, and the world is watching,” Canadian foreign minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said at a news conference in London.

    Ministers from all five countries gathered before the presser to light candles commemorating the victims at the Canadian High Commission in London.

    Of course, such a settlement would likely stretch into the 100s of millions of dollars, which would seriously cut into Iran’s budget for financing Shiite militias across the region (thanks to President Trump’s sanctions, the country is once again struggling to find buyers for its oil, limiting revenue).


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 22:25

    Tags

  • "No, It's Not Over!" – Reading Sun Tzu In Tehran
    “No, It’s Not Over!” – Reading Sun Tzu In Tehran

    Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Iran is not done. General Hajizadeh, Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, said in a briefing yesterday that the strike “was the starting point of a great operation”. He also underlined that “the strikes were not meant to cause fatalities: We intended [rather] to deliver a blow to the enemy’s military machine”. And the Pentagon is saying, too, that Iran intentionally missed US troops at the bases. This is tantamount to the Pentagon admitting that Iran can land missiles with extreme accuracy over a distance of several hundred miles – and further, this occurred with not one missile being intercepted by the US forces. To completely avoid targeting soldiers at a large military base is no mean feat – it suggests an accuracy within a meter or two – not ten meters – for Iranian missiles.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Isn’t this the point? It suggests that advances in Iran’s guidance systems can land missiles with extreme precision. Haven’t we seen something similar happen recently in Saudi Arabia (Abqaiq)? And was it not clear from Abqaiq that highly expensive US air defence systems do not work? The IRGC satisfactorily have demonstrated that they and their allies can penetrate US manufactured air defence systems, using domestically produced ‘smart’ missiles, and by using their electronic warfare systems.

    The US bases around the region – in short – now represent vulnerable US infrastructure – and not strength. Ditto for those expensive carrier battle fleets. The Iranian message was clear and very pertinent to those who understand (or want to understand). To others, less strategically aware, it might seem that Iran pulled its military punch, and showed weakness. Actually, when you have just demonstrated the ability to upend the military status quo, there is no need for a hail of trumpets. The landing of the message itself is the ‘blow’ to a ‘military machine’. Neatly calibrated: it avoided head to head-on war. Trump stood down (and claimed success).

    So then, is it all over – all done and dusted? Finished with? Not at all. Both the Supreme Leader and Gen. Hajizadeh said (effectively) that the strike represented an outset – ‘a beginning’. But much of the MSM – both in the West and some in Israel – lend a cultural ‘tin ear’ towards how Iran manages asymmetric war – even when it is spelled out explicitly.

    Asymmetric warfare is not a ‘dick swinging’ exercise. It is more David and Goliath. Goliath can crush David with a blow from his clenched fist, but the latter is nimble; quick on his feet, dancing around the giant – just out of his reach. David has stamina, but the giant lumbers heavily around, and is easily angered and exhausted. Eventually, even a well-aimed pebble – not even a Howitzer – brings him down.

    Listen closely to the Iranian message: Should the US withdraw from Iraq, as requested by the Iraqi Parliament, and in accordance with its agreement with the government of Baghdad, and then ‘go’ from the region, the military situation will ease. However, should US insist on staying in Iraq, US forces will come under political and military pressure to quit – but not from the state of Iran. It will come from the inhabitants of those states in which the US forces presently are deployed. At this point, US soldiers may be killed (though not by Iranian missiles). It is America’s choice. Iran holds the initiative.

    Iranian leaders have been very explicit: The ‘slap’ of the strike at the Ain al-Assad base is not the pay-back for General Soleimani’s targeted assassination. Rather, it is the campaign consisting of the amorphous, quasi-political, quasi-military, asymmetrical war on America’s presence in the Middle East that has been dedicated as fitting to his memory.

    This is David dancing around Goliath. Soleimani’s assassination has energised and mobilised millions in a new fervour of resistance (and not just the Shi’a, by the way). And the trashing of Iraq’s sovereignty by President Trump’s response to the vote in the Iraqi parliament (calling for foreign forces to leave Iraq), has created a new political paradigm which even the most pro-American of Iraqis cannot easily ignore. It is – notably – a non-sectarian mission (removing foreign forces).

    And Israel, after initial self-congratulation (amongst the Netanyahuists) has understood that Iran has ‘stepped-up’, and not ‘stepped back’. Veteran Israeli security corresponded Ben Caspit writes:

    “The letter of Gen. William H. Sili, commander of US military operations in Iraq, was leaked and then rapidly disseminated among Israel’s most senior security figures on Jan 6 … The content of the letter — that the Americans were preparing to withdraw from Iraq immediately — turned on all the alarm systems throughout the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv. More so, the publication was about to set in motion an Israeli “nightmare scenario” in which ahead of the upcoming US elections, President Donald Trump would rapidly evacuate all US forces from Iraq and Syria.

    “Simultaneously, Iran announced that it is immediately halting its various commitments regarding its nuclear agreement with the superpowers, returning to high-level uranium enrichment of unlimited amounts and renewing its accelerated push for achieving military nuclear abilities. “Under such circumstances,” a senior Israeli defense source told [Caspit], “We truly remain alone at this most critical period. There is no worse scenario than this, for Israel’s national security … It is not clear how this letter was written, it is not clear why it was leaked, it is not clear why it was ever written to begin with. In general, nothing is clear with regard to American conduct in the Middle East. We get up every morning to new uncertainty.””

    The impeachment of the US President launched by the House, has left Trump very vulnerable to the Zionist and Evangelical rump in the US Senate, whose votes nonetheless will be essential to Trump’s bid to remain in office when the articles of impeachment move to the Senate. And to a trial where Trump must block the Democrats allying with any Republican rebels in order to achieve a two-thirds ‘guilty’ vote. The Impeachment leverage has been used several times to push Trump to act in the Middle-East directly contrary to his electoral interest – which remains contingent on keeping soaring markets – and in talk of a China Trade deal.

    What Trump needs most now (in electoral campaign terms) is a de-escalation with Iran – one that would mitigate political pressure from the neo-con and Evangelical quarters, and allow him to show-case the inflated asset markets.

    But this is precisely what he will not get.

    Trumps’ attempts to contain the Iranian response to the Soleimani killing were unreservedly rebuffed by Tehran. The missives were never opened, nor allowed for them to be spoken by the mediators. There is no room for talks, unless Trump lifts sanctions and the US re-commits to the JCPOA. This will never happen. There will now be immense pressure from all the Israel lobbies for America to remain in Iraq and Syria (pace Caspit’s comments). And the ghost of Soleimani’s ‘revenge’ will haunt America’s forces in the region for months, if not years, to come.

    Iran – wisely – has eschewed direct, state-to-state military conflict, for a more subtle, and pernicious war on the US presence in the Middle East – a war, which if successful, will re-cast the region.

    No, it’s not over. Its set to escalate (but in an asymmetrical way). Trump will remain squeezed in the rogue Senators’ vice.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 22:05

  • Lebanese 'Week Of Wrath' Sees Banks Physically Attacked On Large Scale
    Lebanese ‘Week Of Wrath’ Sees Banks Physically Attacked On Large Scale

    Lebanese banks are limiting account holders to withdrawing a mere $100 of their own money at a time (and just $200 total a week) after the country’s banking crisis due to eroding liquidity and central bank’s looming default have been at the center of mass anti-corruption street protests since October of last year.

    “There is a lot of anger,” one Lebanese protester told the AFP on Thursday. “You have to go to the bank twice to withdraw just $200.” 

    Banks and ATMs are now being targeted for vandalism and destruction by demonstrators who have declared a “week of wrath” — specifically in major cities like Beirut. It’s now been two months since commercial banks have enacted severe controls preventing large money transfers abroad and restricting clients’ access to their deposits. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Banks across Beirut have been targeted for physical attack this week. Image source: AFP

    These latest imposed capital controls now include limiting withdrawals to less than $200 a week, according to Lebanon’s Daily Star

    Violent clashes between mostly young protesters and policed have raged in the upscale commercial hub of Hamra district in Beirut over the last two nights. Local reports described the scene as looking like a war zone, with burning tires in debris and glass strewn streets — much of that glass from smashed bank windows.

    Several bank fronts attacked by enraged protesters prevented from accessing their accounts amid a broader political and financial crisis:

    The Daily Star reports the crowd attempted to storm the Central Bank building in the district

    After a month of rain, Tuesday’s protests saw the highest turnout in weeks. Following an extended stand-off in front of the headquarters of the Central Bank, protesters came into conflict with security forces that resulted in at least seven wounded.

    Several people attempted to storm the Central Bank building, breaking through the outer fence and calling for “the fall of the rule of the bank” and the resignation of Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh

    A reported 59 were arrested during the mayhem, which is likely set to continue, and has for months witnessed frustrated Lebanese physically attacking bank fronts in their efforts to get their own money out.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Protest leaders have consistently accused the national and commercial banks of “theft” while the bankers attempt to defend against a massive run on currency, especially the dollar.  

    “What happened yesterday was a response from people who are hungry, whose money is being stolen, and economic policies that have directly led us to this crisis for years now,” Ayman, a 27-year old present for the Hamra protests told the Lebanese Daily Star.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Adding to the the explosive situation is that Lebanon has been without a government since the prime minister resigned in late October amid protests so large (some 1 million people) that it brought the small country to a standstill.

    Al Jazeera summarizes the situation as follows:  

    Compounding the situation, debt-burdened Lebanon has been without a government since Saad Hariri resigned as prime minister on October 29 under pressure from the anti-government protests.

    Its under-fire politicians have yet to agree on a new cabinet despite the designation last month of Hassan Diab, a professor and former education minister, to replace Hariri.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In some cases it appears local security forces have held back or simply ignored instances of mob destruction of bank fronts (after all, the police and their families can’t access their accounts either).

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Meanwhile, Reuters outlines ways the country could imminently default, and possible options for barely avoiding it:

    One of the possibilities to help Lebanon’s finances is to take a slice of the deposits individuals and firms hold at Lebanese banks.

    The controversial measure was used in Cyprus at the height of the euro zone debt crisis. James McCormack, head of Fitch’s sovereign rating team, said that move didn’t actually trigger a default as the definition of a default is more narrowly focused on the non-payment of debt.

    Though certainly the people in the streets will have something to say about taking “a slice of the deposits” held by individuals and firms. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “One of the most heavily indebted countries in the world, Lebanon has $2.5 billion in Eurobonds due this year including a $1.2 billion bond set to mature in March,” Reuters notes.

    “But its dire finances and political crisis mean it is running out of options to avoid a default.”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 21:45

  • Capitalism In America: How A Dismal Decimal Is Robbing Americans Blind
    Capitalism In America: How A Dismal Decimal Is Robbing Americans Blind

    Authored by Jon Hellevig via The Saker Blog,

    There is no hiding anymore, the United States has become an oligarch owned banana republic with nukes, and with a monopoly currency which has allowed it to rig the markets for half a century. But now we are only a couple of hours from curtain – Midnight in America.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With the stock market at all-time highs, virtually no unemployment (or so they say), and brisk GDP growth (supposedly) in the last decade, economic analysts would declare that the US economy is in excellent shape. But, it isn’t. The stock market is a central bank inflated asset bubble, and what GDP growth there has been, is an illusion brought about by the very same financial bubble and by pumping the economy up with record federal borrowings to finance the deficits that America cannot afford. Rigged statistics showing artificially low inflation serve to hold together the Trumped-up American economic narrative. (About the rigged inflation statistics, see this report). And the low unemployment figure is nothing but a chimera based on misleading statistics.

    In reality, the US economy is failing – and the country with it. At least two-thirds of the population has seen dramatic declines in living standards and half are back to levels of developing nations – without the development.

    The big story covered up by all the happy macroeconomic figures repeated by rote by the US establishment – everybody from the president to cable television pundits and Trump fanboys – is the gradual impoverishment of the American worker. That’s an inconvenient truth increasingly difficult to hide as the American dream has turned into a nightmare for huge swathes of the population. As the figures we present below show, the rich are really getting richer, the middle class has been decimated, and half of Americans are poor and destitute of any financial wealth. The super-rich are gobbling up an ever-increasing slice of the American pie at the cost of all the rest who get nothing but table scraps on one side and leftover crumbs on the other, if anything. The resulting stratification of society has brought back a medieval servant economy, where the have-nots are doing odd jobs, cleaning houses, fetching groceries, running errands and deliveries for the feudal rich and the remaining shrinking middle class.

    Thanks to the Fed (the American oligarch owned central bank) pushing easy money into the hands of the privileged elite, the super-rich Dismal Decimal – the top 0.1% – have by now amassed as much wealth as they had just before the Great Depression that started with the stock market crash in 1929. A lesson not learned. Back to square one. How will it end this time?

    This article is based on an Awara Accounting study titled Widening Income and Wealth Gap and Stagnating Wages in America.”  Links and source references to all the facts presented here can be found in said study.

    BTW all the data in this report is derived from official US government sources and American experts analyzing them.

    During the last decades, the financial rewards from the rigged markets first flew exclusively into the pockets of Top 10%, but later it was increasingly Top 1%, which pocketed most, perfectly illustrated by below charts.

    1. The income of Top 1% has grown five times as fast as that of Bottom 90% income since 1970, who now earn double the amount of income than 160 million poor of the lower 50% stratum.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The fortunes of Top 1% and Bottom 50% are now reversed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    2. Top 1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 50% combined.

    Income inequality obviously leads to wealth inequality, but here the figures are yet more striking in showing the magnitudes of the grab at the top. Since 1989, Top 1% captured $21 trillion in wealth, while Bottom 50% lost $900 billion, actually pushing them down to negative wealth, meaning they have more debt than they have assets. On a net analysis, half of Americans own nothing of real value.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    3. Until the creeping coup under Reagan, income equality was improving

    It was bad enough in 1995 when Top 1% earned as much as Bottom 50%, but today the richest 1% already take 20% of all income leaving the bottom half with only 12%. As the chart shows, back in 1978 – before the neoliberal creeping coup really got going – the trends were reversed. Below chart compares income growth since 1920 of Top 1% to Bottom 90% (that is, all the rest except Top 10%). We see that right after Ronald Reagan entered the presidency with his Chicago School snake oil influenced backers, the income growth of the 1% started its dizzying growth, which is continuing to this date.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    4. Back in 1962, the share of Top 1% of America’s wealth at 33% was equal to that of Bottom 90%, but in the early 1980s the share of Bottom 90% started a steep descent and by 2016 their share had dwindled down to 21%. Especially after the Federal Reserve shifted its market rigging low-interest-rate money-pumping policy into high gear from the beginning of 2000s, the superrich have experienced a massive rise in their fortunes, as illustrated by below chart.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But by today Top 1% are losers compared with Top 0.1% – the Dismal Decimal – who are where the music plays.

    5. Top 0.1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90% combined.

    A recent study revealed that the concentration on the top is yet much more pernicious. It’s not any more a question of Top 10%, and not even Top 1%, as it is the Top 0.1% – the Dismal Decimal – that has now concentrated the wealth of the nation (and half the world) in their greedy hands. Top 0.1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90% combined. As the below chart shows, we are essentially back to the Roaring Twenties…a lesson not learned. Actually, in the aftermath of the Great Depression, America entered an unprecedented era of four decades of prosperity with a more equal distribution of wealth as Bottom 90% recovered strongly in distribution of wealth at the expense of Top 0.1% parasites.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    6. Top 0.1% earnings grew 347% between 1979 and 2017, while Top 1% “only” gained 157% – the rest gained nothing

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    7. The next chart takes a longer perspective – while widening the sample to Top 10% – and shows their share of the total income since 1910 to 2010. The Roaring Twenties – the period before the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression – experienced the same level of glaring inequality as today’s America. With Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reforms the egregious average income inequality was tamed and stayed relatively low until Reagan’s fatal presidency. And it’s been downhill ever since – or uphill, if we look at it from the perspective of the rich.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    8. The only economic figure that has managed to look good is the GDP, but that is so only until you bother to find out where it comes from – from the Federal Reserved fueled asset bubble and massive federal budget deficits financed by record national debts. For an excellent exposé of how rigged and debt-ridden the US economy is, I refer to my earlier report published on the Saker blog: The Oligarch Takeover of US Pharma and Healthcare – And the Resulting Human Crisis. Shortly: The US economy must be seen as a giant Ponzi scheme, which will implode sooner or later. And we are getting to that sooner part now.

    Trump habitually and regularly brags about the stock market reaching another all-time high. But that’s really being out of touch with the electorate. Stock market gains exclusively flow to the rich increasing inequality and the cost of living for the rest. Thing is that, beyond the richest 10% very few Americans have a stake in the stock market. In 2016, the richest one percent held more than half of all outstanding stock, financial securities, and all other sorts of equity. The remainder of those asset categories were held by the rest of Top 10%, who owned over 93% of all stock and mutual fund ownership. What wealth the remaining 90% may own is largely residential housing, the homes where they live. According to Jonathan Tepper, the wealthiest 1% own nearly 50% of stock and the top 10% more than 81%. The so-called middle class owns only 8% of all stock.

    This also kills the myth that record highs on the stock market would be good for American retirement savings – with the richest few holding all the shares there’s nothing in it for the overwhelming majority.

    A recent report also showed that only 10% of Americans are invested in pension plans. That is down from 60% in 1980. And those who are, are traditionally more weighted towards bonds and money-market instruments, which suffer from the rigged markets with the artificially low interest rates. The pension savers are hence literally paying for the super gains flowing into the pockets of Top 1%. On the other hand the super low interest rates are out of grasp for the all but Top 1% who gobble up the wealth of the nation with that largesse delivered to them by their Federal Reserve. At the same time the common household is paying double-digit rates on their credit card debt traps.

    9. Below Top 10% wages and total household income have been stagnant, at best.

    10. Average income of the bottom 50% has stagnated at around $16,000 since 1980, while the income of the top 1% has skyrocketed by 300% to approximately $1,340,000 in 2014

    11. 45% of Americans earn annually only 18,000 or less. A recent study found that 53 million Americans or 44% of the working age population earn a median average annual salary of only $18,000. Basically then, at least half of the Americans are working-poor.

    12. Middle-class households had in 2015 basically the same income as they had in 1979

    13. In the two decades from 1997 to 2017, only Top 5% of households saw their income increase

    14. For most American workers, real wages have barely budged in decades. By end of 2018, the real inflation-adjusted average wage had about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago.

    15. As the below chart illustrates, the real average hourly wage which was $20.27 in 1964 had only inched up to $22.27. David Stockman calculated that the real hourly worker’s wage was in 2019 still at 1972 levels.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    16. For full-time employed men real wages have fallen 4.4% since 1973, according to economist Paul Craig Roberts.
    The total average income of men at $51,212 in 2015, was lower in real terms than it had been in 1974.

    17. As of 2014, the average hours worked per week had fallen from around 39 hours in 1970s to under 34 hours. Economist Mike Shedlock calculated that the actual hours worked and the average hourly earnings would deliver a weekly income of $690, well below its $825 peak back in the early 1970s. If we multiply the hypothetical weekly earnings by 50, we get an annual figure of $35,497. That would in 2014 have translated to a 16.4% decline from its peak in October 1972.

    18. All labor productivity growth since the 1970s have gone to the robber capitalists. From 1973 to 2013, hourly compensation of a typical (production/nonsupervisory) worker rose just 9% percent while productivity increased 74%.

    19. Nowhere is income inequality and the egregious worsening trend as manifest as in the case of CEO pay. In the 1970s, CEOs made 30 times what typical workers made, but by 2017 the CEOs made 361 times the workers’ pay. According to the Economic Policy Institute CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978, while typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time.

    The Fed fueled financial market orgy is the main cause for the windfall riches of CEOs as stock options and the accompanying share buybacks make up a huge part of CEO pay packages. This rising pay of executives was the main factor in Top 0.1%’s super grab of household income

    20. A 2017 study found that 40% of US adults struggle to pay for basic necessities like food, healthcare, housing, and utilities.

    21. Most Americans have depleted all their spare resources as a staggering 78% of full-time workers are reported to live from paycheck to paycheck.

    22. Nearly 70% of Americans have virtually no savings. Bottom 55% have zero savings, while the following 24% – the core of the former middle class – have only $1,000 stashed away.

    23. Correspondingly Bottom 70% of Americans don’t own any real wealth (beyond rapidly depreciating durables).

    24. The other side of the (non-existent) coin is that the same 50% of Americans would obviously struggle to come up with $400 for an unexpected expense. By extension, the former middle class – those with the miserly savings of $1,000 – would also have real troubles in coping with any kind of bill for medical treatment without dipping into more debt. Considering the above reported findings (see the chart) only the Top 10% would be financially secure in a medical emergency.

    25. According to shocking findings by the American Cancer Society, 137.1 million US residents suffered medical financial hardship in 2018. Americans had to resort to borrow a total of $88 billion in 2018 only to cover for essential medical treatment.

    26. A third of young adults, or 24 million of those aged 18 to 34, lived with in their parents’ home because they cannot afford a home of their own.

    27. The income and wealth gap pictures get worse yet when we look at the age distribution of wealth. Younger generations are earning less and own next to nothing (that is, if you are not the golden youth of the 10%). Baby Boomers born between the end of the Second World War and 1964 currently hold wealth that is 11 times higher than that of millennials.

    Median Income for Younger and Older Families in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    28. The number of full-time jobs with life-sustaining wages – what economist David Stockman calls breadwinner jobs – have not been growing since 2000, by 2014 their number was still 3.5 million or 5% lower than it was at the peak in early 2001. In the same period 4 million part-time and gig jobs were created.

    While the official unemployment figure is presently near historical lows – and at levels what some economists would like to call full employment – there are some big problems with it.

    1. Problems with the official unemployment statistics. The officially touted unemployment figure (so-called U3 unemployment) record only those who have been looking for a job during the last 4 weeks, while discouraged long-term unemployed are cleansed from the statistics and left unrecorded as if they would not be in the workforce at all – makes stats look beautiful for the powers that shouldn’t be.

    2. The labor participation rate has been falling.

    3. New job creation has amounted to only a third of the annual increase in working age population.

    4. Part-time and gig jobs count as full-time employment. Any person who takes a part-time or gig job for just a few hours a month is recorded among the employed, although they would rightly be considered unemployed merely clutching at straws.

    5. Connected with the previous point, there is also a more general problem with the quality of jobs created. Most jobs created in the last two decades are low-paid low-skill jobs that do not provide a life-sustaining income considering the cost of living in the United States.

    More than one third (36%) of U.S. workers are in the gig economy, doing part-time work or side hustles for companies like Uber, Lyft, Etsy, Amazon Mechanical Turk, Freelancer.com, Ebay or just any odd job they can get from time to time.

    29. To make up for the shrinking earnings, the regime is pushing the American population into 21st century debt peonage. Ensnared in the debt trap, US households had nearly $14 trillion in outstanding debt at the end of the third quarter 2019. That debt load now equals 73% of GDP. By end of 2019, consumption debt alone (not including asset acquiring mortgages) was up by $2 trillion since 2014.

    Since 2004, the weight of the student loan millstone has gone up fivefold from only $250 billion to today’s $1.5 trillion.

    That’s due to the huge price inflation in higher education. The cost of both public and private college escalated by 40% over the general consumer price inflation between 2005 and 2015.

    30. Because of the huge rise in the last few decades in cost of living in the US, in Russia, you get the same standard of living for a fraction of the American cost. A Moscow average monthly salary equal to $1,600 (annual $19,200) gives the same purchasing power as a monthly salary of $6,000 in Chicago (annual $72,000). Meaning, you live in Moscow (at least as well for a monthly paycheck of $1,600 as you live in Chicago for a paycheck of $6,000. For details, see this report

    31. The present oligarch controlled rigged crony capitalist system has killed the American dream, the belief that anyone, regardless of parents’ social status and incomes can attain success and wealth by hard work and ingenuity. The gates for upward mobility have been shut for the overwhelming majority. The monopolization of practically all sectors of the economy, the ever increasing bureaucratic restrictions on doing business, the extreme concentration of ownership, and the rigged financial markets have made it increasingly hard for people outside the top echelon of penetrating the financial membrane protecting the elites. A 2017 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that the probability that a household outside the top 10% made it into the highest tier within 10 years was twice as high during 1984-1994 as it was during 2003-2013.

    The United States is an oligarchy

    This concentration of the income and wealth on the top, proves that the United States is an oligarchy. A 2014, study by Princeton University  demonstrated how the US is a political oligarchy. With this report showing the insanely widening income and wealth inequality, my aim is to show, that the country is an economic oligarchy, too. In fact, economic super riches are the precondition for their political power, too. In America, as always, the oligarchy has achieved their uncontested power in a hermeneutical feedback loop, where the initial wealth of the superrich has bought them increased political power, which has given them increased riches, which has bought them more political power, and so on, until today, when they own practically the whole economy and the entire government. Clearly the source of higher inequality has been Fed policies, which has pushed cheap money into the pockets of the already rich, who have exclusively then benefited from soaring stock and real estate prices.

    Fittingly, we got end of 2019 a report revealing that the world’s richest people increased their wealth in the year by $1.2 trillion, a staggering 25%, most of which belong to the oligarchs of the United States.

    The question – which I have set to explore in my series of Capitalism in America – is whether there has been a game plan, a long-term strategy or whether intermittent achievements have just spurred the oligarchs on to new economic and political power grabs in the course of establishing their totalitarian rule. I tend to think, there has been a long-term plan ever since the establishment of the Federal Reserve. The economic and political history of the United States provide so much circumstantial evidence, which supports the view that there has been a conspiracy of the Wall Street elite. I shall return to this hypothesis in further installments to this series of Capitalism in America. It is however clear – whether through a long-term plan or by a series of ad hoc interventions – the US financial elite has by now completed a creeping coup, which have delivered them absolute economic and political power.

    *  *  *

    In my investigation of the oligarchization of America – the creeping neoliberal oligarch coop, which set in full force since Reagan – I have so far completed these instalments:

    • The first installment was a study showing how all corporate ownership has been concentrated in the hands of the oligarchy, titled Extreme concentration of ownership in the United States 

    • The second part was a study revealing how the oligarchy has totally taken over US media, titled The Oligarch Takeover of US Media 

    • The third installment was a report published on the Saker blog titled New World Order in Meltdown, But Russia Stronger Than Ever 

    • The fourth installment, The Oligarch Takeover of US Pharma and Healthcare  was also on the Saker blog.

    • Next due is a report showing how from point of view of political science the oligarchy has destroyed the social fabric of the US economy and deliberately enacted laws that favor the few over the people. Of particular interest here is how the oligarchy has rigged the political system by institutionally solidifying the mendacious Janus- faced two-party system in order to remove any potential challenge to their rule.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 21:25

  • China Growth Slows To 29 Year Low In 2019 Despite Q4 Rebound
    China Growth Slows To 29 Year Low In 2019 Despite Q4 Rebound

    With phase-one talks completed in October (and signed this week), tonight’s Q4 GDP and December smorgasbord of data is being keenly watched by the market for any signs that China’s massive credit stimulus has actually done any good at all.

    Ahead of tonight’s key China data dump, State Grid, China’s largest utility company, has warned the rate of economic growth in the country could plunge to 4% within the next four years, according to internal forecasts.

    “We were upbeat about China’s power demand five years ago because the economy was still robust and 7 or 8 percent GDP growth was the bottom line,” the official said. “No one expected growth to decelerate so sharply.” He warned that 4% growth by 2024 was the utility’s worst-case scenario. 

    And despite a YoY rise in China’s credit impulse, shadow financing continues to contract, while loans in the banking sector expanded, but not enough, expectations are for 6.0% GDP growth in Q4, the same as Q3…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The jump in credit is a year-end headfake however, and thus is not expected to be sustained…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    But expectations for the rest of the China data is to slide from impressive November data (that lifted the ECO surprise index)…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Despite plenty of volatility, Q4’s average for offshore yuan was modestly weaker than Q3…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    But the Chinese stock market refuses to play along with the credit impulse…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Ahead of the print, we note that the two manufacturing purchasing-manager indexes indicated that activity was picking up that month; and exports and imports also both gained.

    So, with the trade-deal finally signed (whatever that means), are tonight’s December (and Q4 data) signaling optimism?

    • China Q4 GDP YoY MEET +6.0% vs +6.0% exp and +6.0% prior.

    • China Dec Industrial Production YoY BEAT +5.7% vs +5.6% exp and +5.6% prior.

    • China Dec Retail Sales YoY BEAT +8.0% vs +7.9% exp and +8.0% prior.

    • China Dec Fixed Asset Investment YoY BEAT +5.4% vs +5.2% exp and +5.2% prior.

    • China Dec Property Investment FELL YoY +9.9% vs +10.2% prior.

    • China Dec Surveyed Jobless Rate WORSENED 5.2% vs 5.1% prior.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Dec. industrial output grew faster than all 41 estimates (with grain output reached a record high in 2019 as pork output fell 21.3% last year).

    Bloomberg notes that within retail sales, “daily use” items saw weaker gains, while tobacco and alcohol accelerated. Jewelry spending saw its best gain since June, so it seems like Chinese consumers were opening up their wallets for non-necessities last month.

    Amongst all data releases today what caught ANZ Chief Economist Raymond Yeung’s attention is surveyed jobless rate which rose to 5.2% from 5.1%. For such a big country with more than 400m urban employment workforce, a small change in jobless rate means a lot.

    As a reminder, the official target range for China GDP growth for the year was 6.0-6.5%, with tonight’s slightly disappointing data (vs +6.2%) confirming 2019’s +6.1% is the weakest annual expansion since 1990…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    So, is bad news good news? (more non-economically-catalytic stimulus?)

    How Chinese GDP is ‘created’ – We’re gonna need moar M2…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    But even that is not working as even though M2 has been rising since 2017, GDP continues to slide, which means efficiency of debt is collapsing.

    Seems like nothing really matters though as we note that 10Y Taiwan debt traded down to a 60bps yield – a record low – as the Taiwan stock market hit new record highs…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Congrats global central bankers.

    Additional data released tonight shows that China’s birth rate dropped to a new record low (Birth rate fell to 10.48 births per 1,000 population in 2019 ). The shrinking working-age population and ageing society threaten to hurt growth in the long term.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 21:10

  • Robots Takeover Domino's New Supply Chain Center
    Robots Takeover Domino’s New Supply Chain Center

    Dominos has started the construction on a 59,000 square foot facility in Texas that will be the source of creating pizza dough for hundreds of regional stores, and there’s one major issue: the new high-tech supply chain center will be completely automated. 

    The new facility, located at 900 Igloo Road in Katy, Texas, will produce enough pizza dough for 300 stores across the region. The production of the dough will be entirely completed by robots and artificial intelligence systems for maximum productivity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The company said because they will eliminate humans from the production line, the facility can create upwards of 20,000 trays of pizza dough balls per day. 

    The new facility will only create 85 jobs, as opposed to if there weren’t any robots, it would have created hundreds of jobs for the local community. 

    Dominos, like many other businesses, is rapidly integrating automation into its supply chain to fend off soaring labor costs that are compressing margins. The company has found it hard to pass through increased costs to broke consumers, so it has opted to introduce automation and the elimination of humans from its supply chains to keep pizza prices low. 

    The new automated supply chain facility will open in late 2020.

    We recently reported how a Walmart Supercenter in Salem, New Hampshire, has been testing robots to collect grocery items for online order fulfillment.

    Millions of low-wage and low-skill jobs will be displaced because of automation by 2030. The new wave of investing in automation for supply chains is clear that middle- to low-income workers will be displaced the hardest. The government will be faced with market imbalances and expanding wealth inequality, this could push society to the brink, as it will likely be the Federal Reserve in the coming years to underwrite People’s QE. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 20:50

  • Red Flag Nation: Anti-Gun Laws, Sanctuary Cities, & The Second Amendment
    Red Flag Nation: Anti-Gun Laws, Sanctuary Cities, & The Second Amendment

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “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.” – The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

    We never learn.

    In the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.

    Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

    The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

    Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, will only add to the government’s power.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.

    Seventeen states now have red flag laws on their books.

    That number is growing.

    As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.

    In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

    Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

    Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

    With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

    While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

    We’ve been down this road before.

    Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

    This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

    This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

    This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

    For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

    Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

    Let that sink in a moment.

    Now consider what happened in Maryland after a police officer attempted to “enforce” the state’s new red flag law, after it went into effect in 2018.

    At 5 am on a Monday, two police officers showed up at 61-year-old Gary Willis’ house to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns. Willis answered the door holding a gun.

    Mind you, in some states, merely answering the door holding a gun is enough to get you killed by police who have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.

    Willis initially set his gun aside while he spoke with the police. However, when the police attempted to serve him with the gun confiscation order, Willis reportedly became “irate” and picked up his gun again. At that point, a struggle ensued, causing the gun to go off. Although no one was harmed, one of the cops shot and killed Willis.

    According to the Anne Arundel County police chief, the shooting was a sign that the red flag law is needed.

    What the police can’t say with any certainty is what they prevented by shooting and killing Willis.

    Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

    Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

    Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

    In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

    In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutterdrive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social mediaappear mentally ill, serve in the militarydisagree with a law enforcement officialcall in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

    Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

    You will be tracked wherever you go.

    You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

    This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

    The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

    To that noxious mix, add in a proposal being considered by the Trump Administration for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

    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.

    If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

    Connect the dots.

    Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

    To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

    Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.

    This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.

    In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.

    Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the American police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.

    In the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.

    Now you can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

    Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment’s “militia” reference as applying only to the military.

    To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.

    And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

    Unfortunately, while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy, the U.S. government has adopted a “do what I say, not what I do” mindset when it comes to Americans’ rights overall.

    Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government’s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while treating anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one, as suspicious and/or on the road to being an outlaw.

    In Virginia, for instance, legislation has been introduced that would “require background checks on all firearms purchases, allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others, let localities ban weapons from certain events and government buildings, and cap handgun purchases at one per month.”

    To those who subscribe to George Orwell’s views about gun ownership (“That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there”), these legislative attempts to regulate and control gun usage among the citizenry is nothing short of tyranny.

    Not surprisingly, then, in Virginia and a growing number of states across the country, momentum is building for 2A “sanctuary” cities that adopt resolutions opposing any “unconstitutional restrictions” on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Personally, I’m all for any attempt by the citizenry to nullify government actions that run afoul of the Constitution.

    Certainly, there’s no denying that there is a huge double standard at play when it comes to the debate over guns in America: while the government continues to crack down on the citizenry’s right to own and bear arms (merely owning a gun can now get you treated as a suspect, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, shot at and killed despite ever having committed a crime), the government’s own efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees has reached epic proportions.

    Ironically, while various state and federal agencies continue to adopt gun control legislation that includes bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, expanded background checks, and tougher gun-trafficking laws, local police agencies are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield.

    “We the people” have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.

    When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership.

    As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.

    Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well.

    “The Constitution is not neutral,” Douglas remarked, “It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”

    In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state.

    To our detriment, these rights have been steadily weakened, eroded and undermined in recent years. Yet without any one of them, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.

    You can eliminate all of the guns, but it will not necessarily eliminate violence. Those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

    It’s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to their safety or well-being, although a study by a Quinnipiac University economist indicates that less restrictive concealed gun-carry laws save lives, while gun control can endanger lives.

    In fact, journalist Kevin Carson, writing for CounterPunch, suggests that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would be as dangerously ineffective as Prohibition and the War on the Drugs:

    [W]hat strict gun laws will do is take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done. I’d expect a War on Guns to expand the volume of organized crime, and to empower criminal gangs fighting over control over the black market, in exactly the same way Prohibition did in the 1920s and strict drug laws have done since the 1980s. I’d expect it to lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail.

    Truly, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game.

    In other words, it’s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.

    The Constitution is clear on this particular point, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach. As author Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964:

    No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.

    In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one’s personal defense but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship.

    Certainly, dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well. As Adolf Hitler noted, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

    It should come as no surprise, then, that starting in December 1935, Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting licenses, because authorities believed that to allow them to do so would “endanger the German population.”

    In late 1938, special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms, with the punishment for arms possession being twenty years in a concentration camp.

    The rest, as they say, is history.

    Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it is a history that we should be wary of repeating.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 20:30

    Tags

  • The US And Iran Are Furiously Trolling Each Other On The Chinese Internet
    The US And Iran Are Furiously Trolling Each Other On The Chinese Internet

    It looks the US and Iran are on the verge of an all-out meme war.

    Over the past few days, as the aftermath of the killing of Iranian General Qasem Suileimani has faded from the headlines, the US and Iran have moved their feuding to a different, and extremely unexpected, venue: The Chinese Internet.

    According to the New York Times, the Weibo accounts for the Iranian and American embassies in Beijing have been trading barbs on Weibo, a Chinese-language social-media site that’s often compared to the Chinese version of twitter.

    The two sides have accused each other of inciting terrorism, and denounced one another as corrupt. The US embassy has accused Iran of “leaving bloodstains everywhere.” The Iranian embassy has denounced Suleimani’s killing and vowed to seek the end of “America’s evil forces in western Asia.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Iranian embassy has also been taking screenshots of tweets from its Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and reposting them on Weibo with Chinese translations.

    Most major western Internet platforms, including Google, FB and Twitter, are blocked from the Chinese Internet (though some can get around this using a VPN). 

    Typically, China’s censors block political content on the Internet for fear of allowing any information that might undermine the Communist Party from slipping through. But for whatever reason, they have so far been inclined to allow the US and Iran to go at it in full view of the Chinese public.

    Instead, Chinese media have closely followed the spat, even going so far as to describe Weibo as “the new battlefield” between the US and Iran. The hashtag “Weibo fight” had been viewed nearly 2 million times as of Thursday.

    Meanwhile, in the US, some social media companies, including Facebook, are removing posts and even entire accounts run by Iranians (who have access to Instagram), because of their pro-Iran content.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    So, the US and Iran are having a debate on the Chinese Internet that Facebook and its fellow Silicon Valley titans have banned from the American Internet. Isn’t it ironic?


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 20:10

    Tags

  • US Debt Got Us Hooked On Petrodollars… And On Saudi Arabia
    US Debt Got Us Hooked On Petrodollars… And On Saudi Arabia

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    The Iranian regime and the Saudi Arabian regime are longtime enemies, with both vying for control of the Persian Gulf region. Part of the conflict stems from religious differences – differences between Shia and Sunni muslim groups. But much of the conflict stems from mundane desires to establish regional dominance.

    For more than forty years, however, Saudi Arabia has had one important ace in the hole in terms of its battle with Iran: the US’s continued support for the Saudi regime.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But why should the US continue to so robustly support this dictatorial regime? Certainly, these close relations can’t be due to any American support for democracy and human rights. The Saudi regime is one of the world’s most illiberal and anti-democratic regimes. Its ruling class has repeatedly been connected to Islamist terrorist groups, with Foreign Policy magazine last year calling Saudi Arabia “the beating heart of Wahhabism — the harsh, absolutist religious creed that helped seed the worldviews of al Qaeda and the Islamic State.”

    Saudis Behind the Petrodollar

    The answer lies in the fact the Saudi state is at the center of US efforts to maintain the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and to ensure global demand for US debt. The origins of this system go back decades.

    By 1974, the US dollar was in a precarious position. In 1971, thanks to profligate spending on both war and domestic welfare programs, the US could no longer maintain a set global price for gold in line with the Bretton Woods system established in 1944. The value of the dollar in relation to gold fell as the supply of dollars increased as a byproduct of growing deficit spending. Foreign governments and investors began to lose faith in the dollar, and both Switzerland and France demanded gold in exchange for dollars as stipulated by Bretton Woods. If this continued, though, US gold holdings would soon be depleted. Moreover, the dollar was losing value against other currencies. In May of 1971, Germany left the Bretton Woods system and the dollar fell against the Deustsche Mark.

    In response to these developments, Nixon announced the US would abandon the Bretton Woods system. The dollar began to float against other currencies.

    Not surprisingly, devaluing the dollar did not restore confidence in the dollar. Moreover, the US had made no effort to rein in deficit spending. So the US needed to continue to find ways to sell government debt without driving up interest rates. That is, the US needed more buyers for its debt. Motivation for a fix grew even more after 1973 when the first oil shock further exacerbated the deficit-fueled price inflation Americans were enduring.

    But by 1974, the enormous flood of dollars from the US into top-oil-exporter Saudi Arabia suggested a solution.

    That year, Nixon sent new US Treasury Secretary William Simon to Saudi Arabia with a mission. As recounted by Andrea Wong at Bloomberg the goal was to

    neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon [against the US] and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth. …

    The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.

    From a public finance point of view, this appeared to be win-win. The Saudis would receive protection from geopolitical enemies, and the US would get a new place to unload large amounts of government debt. Moreover, the Saudis could park their dollars in relatively safe and reliable investments in the United States. This became known as “petrodollar recycling.” By spending on oil, the US — and other oil importers, who were now required to use dollars — was creating new demand for US debt and US dollars.

    This dollar agreement wasn’t limited to Saudi Arabia either. Since Saudi Arabia dominated the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the dollar deal was extended to OPEC overall which meant the dollar became the preferred currency for oil purchases worldwide.

    This scheme assured the dollar’s place as a currency of immense global importance. This was especially important during the 1970s and early 1980s. After all, up until the early 1980s, OPEC enjoyed 50-percent market share in the oil trade. Thanks to the second oil shock, however, much of the world began searching for a wide variety of ways to decrease dependency on oil. By the mid 1980s, OPEC’s share had decreased to less than one-third.

    Today, Saudi Arabia ranks behind both Russia and the United States in terms of oil production. As of 2019, OPEC’s share remains around 30 percent. This has lessened the role of the petrodollar compared to the heady days of the 1970s. But the importance of the petrodollar is certainly not destroyed.

    We can see the ongoing importance of the petrodollar in US foreign policy which had continued to antagonize and threaten any major oil-exporting state that moves toward ending its reliance on dollars.

    As noted by Matthew Hatfield in the Harvard Political Review, it is not likely a mere coincidence that especially belligerent US foreign policy has been applied to the Iraqi, Libyan, and Iranian regimes. Hatfield writes :

    In 2000, Saddam Hussein, then-president of Iraq, announced that Iraq was moving to sell its oil in euros instead of dollars.

    Following 9/11, the United States invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein, and converted Iraqi oil sales back to the U.S. dollar.

    This exact pattern was repeated with Muammar Gaddafi when he attempted to create a unified African currency backed by Libyan gold reserves to to sell African oil . Shortly after his announcement, rebels armed by the US government and allies overthrew the dictator and his regime. After his death, the idea that African oil would be sold on something other than the dollar quickly died out.

    Other regimes that have called for abandoning the petrodollar include Iran and Venezuela. The US has called for regime change in both these countries.

    Oil Exporters Control US Assets

    Threats can be leveled in both directions, however. Last year, for example, Saudi Arabia threatened “to sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar” if Washington “passes a bill exposing OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits.” That is, the Saudi regime is aware that it has at least some leverage with the US because of the Saudi position at the center of the petrodollar system.

    Saudi Arabia is one of few states that can even feign to call the US’s bluff on matters such as these. As has been made abundantly clear by US policy in recent decades, the US is more than willing to invade foreign countries that run afoul of the petrodollar system.

    In the case of Saudi Arabia, however, the Kingdom’s position as an Iran antagonist — and as the world’s third-largest oil exporter — means the US is likely to avoid unnecessary conflict.

    Moreover, it is likely that Saudi holdings of US debt and other assets are significant. When the Saudis make threats, this implicitly also “include[s] liquidating the kingdom’s holdings in the United States.” As Bloomberg reported, Saudi Arabia has also “warned it would start selling as much as $750 billion in Treasuries and other assets if Congress passes a bill allowing the kingdom to be held liable in U.S. courts for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”

    We often hear about how China and Japan hold a lot of US debt, and therefore hold some leverage over the US because of this. (The problem here is that were foreigners to dump US assets, they would drop in price. If US debt drops in price, then the the debt must increase in yield, which means the US must then pay more interest on its debt.) But there is good reason to believe Saudi Arabia is a major holder as well. It is difficult, however, to keep track of how large these holdings are because the Saudi regime has worked closely with the US regime to keep Saudi purchases of American assets secret. When the Treasury reports on foreign holders of US debt, Saudi Arabia is folded in with several other nations to hide the precise nature of Saudi purchases. Nevertheless, as Wong contends, the Saudi regime is “one of America’s largest foreign creditors.”

    The Problem Grows as US Debt Grows

    All else being equal, the US should be growing less dependent on foreign holders of debt. This should especially be true of Saudi and OPEC-held debt since the global role of OPEC and the Saudis have been diminishing in terms of global share.

    But all else isn’t equal and the US has been piling on ever larger amounts of debt in recent years. In 2019, for example, the annual deficit topped one trillion. In a past, less profligate age, this sort of debt creation would be reserved only for wartime or a period of economic depression. Today, however, this immense growth in debt levels makes the US regime more sensitive to changes in demand for US debt,  and this has made the US regime ever more reliant on foreign demand for both US debt and for US dollars. That is, in order to avoid a crisis, the US must ensure that interest rates remain low, and that foreigners want to acquire both US dollars and US debt.

    Were petrodollars and petrodollar recycling to disappear, this would have a two-fold effect on US government finances: a sizable decline in petrodollar recycling would put significant upward pressure on interest rates. The result would be a budget crisis for the US government as it had to devote ever larger amounts of the federal budget to payments on the debt. (The other option would be to have the US’s central bank monetize the debt by purchasing ever-larger amounts of US debt to make up for a lack of foreign demand. This would lead to growing price inflation.)

    Moreover, if participants began to exit the petrodollar system (and, say, sell oil in euros instead) demand for dollars would drop, exacerbating any scenarios in which the central bank is monetizing the debt.  This would also generally contribute to greater price inflation as fewer dollars are sucked out of the US by foreign holders.

    The result could be ongoing declines in government spending on services, and growing price inflation. The US regime’s ability to finance its debt would decline significantly, and the US would need to pull back on military commitments, pensions, and more. Either that, or keep spending at the same rate and face an inflationary spiral.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 19:50

  • Federal Watchdog Finds Trump Admin Illegally Withheld Assistance From Ukraine
    Federal Watchdog Finds Trump Admin Illegally Withheld Assistance From Ukraine

    The nation’s top watchdog has concluded that the White House violated federal law when it withheld nearly $400 million in congressionally authorized US aid last year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), which “does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” according to a Thursday report.

    Of note, the GAO has reached similar conclusions against both Bush administrations and the Clinton administration. In December of 2018, the agency concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) withheld $95 million from the Coast Guard – funds which were eventually released.

    Congressional Democrats have accused Trump of using the withheld aid in a quid-pro-quo in exchange for investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as matters related to the 2016 US election. While House investigators were unable to prove that the funds were used as leverage – including whether Trump directly gave an order to do so, Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on December 18.

    The White House claims its Office of Management and Budget (OMB) paused the funds over corruption concerns. That said, emails released in late December reveal that a senior OMB official directed the Department of Defense to pause the funds less than two hours after a July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine’s new President, Volodomyr Zelensky.

    The GAO, however, concluded that “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”

    Trump has attacked the impeachment charges as politically motivated. White House budget officials have defended their power to stop the money from being given to the Defense Department, arguing both congressional lawmakers and executive branch officials routinely demand delays on funding already signed into law.

    The report brings new scrutiny to a chain of events at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget last year. When top White House officials gave directives to the Pentagon to withhold aid for Ukraine, some OMB officials objected, warning the halt could be improper. At least two officials resigned, in part over concerns about the Ukraine money. –Washington Post

    Trump and the White House have vehemently denied wrongdoing.

    Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) who requested the GAO report, tweeted on Thursday: “This bombshell legal opinion from the independent @USGAO demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump Administration illegally withheld assistance from Ukraine and the public evidence shows that the president himself ordered this illegal act.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 19:31

  • China's Mobile Phone Shipments Plunge 6.2% In 2019 
    China’s Mobile Phone Shipments Plunge 6.2% In 2019 

    The Chinese economy continues to slow with new data via the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT) that shows the country’s mobile phone market suffered its worst month in nearly one year as phone shipments plunged 14.7% in December, contributing to a full-year 6.2% decline, reported Xinhua News Agency.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Full-year phone shipments totaled 389 million, with at least 90% were from domestic brands including Huawei, Oppo, Vivo, and Xiaomi, according to CAICT.

    Shipments of domestic brands dropped 17.4% Y/Y in December. Apple bucked the trend in China last month, recorded an 18% increase.

    Apple shipped 3.2 million iPhones in China in December, CAICT said, adding that it was up from 2.7 million a year earlier.

    Chinese sales of iPhones peaked in 2015 due to longer upgrade cycles and increased domestic competition.

    The trade war has also sparked patriotism in the country, and more citizens are opting for domestic phone brands than foreign ones.

    In 3Q19, Huawei controlled 42% of all new phone shipments in China, according to research firm IDC.

    Despite a continued slowdown in the overall phone industry, 5G phone shipments continued to increase, accounting for 17% of all phones shipped last month.

    Sluggish phone shipments in China is another warning that the global economy is stuck in a low growth period.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 19:30

  • DoJ Begins Second Probe Into Comey's History Of Leaking Classified Intel
    DoJ Begins Second Probe Into Comey’s History Of Leaking Classified Intel

    The New York Times just published a bombshell report that’s faintly reminiscent of the scoops that the Liberal paper of record used to publish during the spring and summer of 2017, when the Mueller probe was in its infancy.

    Except this time, instead of the the leak focusing on alleged wrongdoing by President Trump and his inner circle, the NYT is focusing on former FBI Director James Comey, who has increasingly been taken to task by the mainstream press in recent months for his botched handling of both the Clinton investigation and the origins of the probe in Russian interference (remember that?).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to veteran NYT reporter Adam Goldman (a reporter who won a Pulitzer in 2018 for his work bolstering the Russian interference narrative), federal prosecutors have launched an investigation into an earlier incident of leaking by former FBI Director James Comey.

    This leak, which involves a classified information about Russian intelligence, allegedly surfaced in the Washington Post and NYT some time during 2017.

    A report published in September by the DoJ’s inspector general found that the fired FBI Director James Comey leaked sensitive law enforcement material in the Trump-Russia investigation. Doing so set a “dangerous example” for the bureau’s other employees, Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote. Comey’s former No. 2 man, Andrew McCabe, was also fired for leaking, and is also under investigation.

    Whatever this document was (the NYT claims it was also mentioned in a book by James Stewart published last fall), it apparently played a key role in Comey’s decision to cut the DoJ out of his announcement that the FBI wouldn’t be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton in the email scandal. Furthermore, it was allegedly obtained by Dutch Intelligence operatives, before being handed over to the US. The NYT says the document was “one of the key factors” that drove Comey’s decision to give Hillary a pass.

    The latest investigation involves material that Dutch intelligence operatives siphoned off Russian computers and provided to the United States government. The information included a Russian analysis of what appeared to be an email exchange during the 2016 presidential campaign between Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who was also the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee at the time, and Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, a democracy-promoting organization whose founder, George Soros, has long been a target of the far right.

    In the email, Ms. Wasserman Schultz suggested that then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch would make sure that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted in the email case. Both Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Benardo have denied being in contact, suggesting the document was meant to be Russian disinformation.

    That document was one of the key factors that drove Mr. Comey to hold a news conference in July 2016 announcing that investigators would recommend no charges against Mrs. Clinton. Typically, senior Justice Department officials would decide how to proceed in such a high-profile case, but Mr. Comey was concerned that if Ms. Lynch played a central role in deciding whether to charge Mrs. Clinton, Russia could leak the email.

    Of course, the NYT suggests that the investigation might be politically motivated, but offers no other evidence to support this claim than the “suspicious” timing (per NYT, the DoJ typically doesn’t investigate years-old leaks).

    The timing of the investigation could raise questions about whether it was motivated at least in part by politics. Prosecutors and F.B.I. agents typically investigate leaks of classified information around the time they appear in the news media, not years later. And the inquiry is the latest politically sensitive matter undertaken by the United States attorney’s office in Washington, which is also conducting an investigation of Mr. Comey’s former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe, that has been plagued by problems.

    Law enforcement officials are scrutinizing at least two news articles about the F.B.I. and Mr. Comey, published in The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2017, that mentioned the Russian government document, according to the people familiar with the investigation. Hackers working for Dutch intelligence officials obtained the document and provided it to the F.B.I., and both its existence and the collection of it were highly classified secrets, the people said.

    The document played a key role in Mr. Comey’s decision to sideline the Justice Department and announce in July 2016 that the F.B.I. would not recommend that Hillary Clinton face charges in her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state.

    It’s believed that the investigation began in recent months, but it’s unclear whether a grand jury has been impaneled, or how many witness have been interviewed.

    Comey has already been investigated by federal prosecutors in NY for leaking: He infamously turned over a memo to personal friend Daniel Richman with the explicit intention of getting it to an NYT reporter. That document was later determined to be classified, though prosecutors declined to charge Comey (and instead let the IG handle it).

    But what this probe shows is that Comey has a history of leaking that isn’t Trump-specific. The Clinton email investigation began long before Trump secured the Republican nomination.

    It could be the straw that finally wrecks whatever is left of Comey’s credibility in the eyes of the liberal press.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 19:11

  • Ukraine Launches Criminal Probe Into 'Illegal Surveillance' Of American Ambassador Fired By Trump
    Ukraine Launches Criminal Probe Into ‘Illegal Surveillance’ Of American Ambassador Fired By Trump

    The first domino in the House Dems’ plan to push moderate Republicans to support a decision to call witnesses during President Trump’s impeachment trial has just fallen.

    As we reported earlier this week, House Dems released a cache of notes and texts from former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who has been accused of funneling foreign money to the Trump campaign.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Text messages released from March 2019 between Parnas and Robert Hyde, a Connecticut resident who is planning a Congressional run on the Republican ticket, appear to shed light on a plot to try and oust former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich. In the conversation, the two discussed rumors that Yovanovich was being protected by the Kremlin (how’s that for Russian influence?). They also allegedly discussed the ambassador’s whereabouts, and how they had a person on the “inside” to keep tabs on her.

    Yovanovich was eventually pushed out, and now Ukraine has opened a criminal case into the possibility of illegal surveillance of Yovanovitch during her time as ambassador, according to a release from the Ukrainian Interior Ministry. Yovanovitch, who provided evidence to the House, claimed she was spied on before being fired by President Trump, according to the Independent.

    Keep in mind: many of the handwritten notes released yesterday were unverified and undated, though Dems allege they were written by Parnas.

    But that didn’t stop Yovanovitch’s lawyer from calling for an investigation after the notes and texts allegedly suggested that she was being watched.

    However, to many people, the behavior being described is no different from having an office mole who feeds information about employees to the boss. That being said, we’re sure the Dems will use this as an excuse to revive the Russian interference narrative.

    Of course, when the Dems inevitably push to call Parnas as a witness, Republicans can counter with a totally legitimate political quid pro quo: Calling Parnas as a witness in exchange for calling Hunter Biden.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 01/16/2020 – 19:11

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 15th January 2020

  • NATO Flounders In The Middle East
    NATO Flounders In The Middle East

    Authored by Brian Cloughley via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Never reluctant to poke its nose into regions where it has no commitments or relevance, the Nato military alliance is stumbling round in Iraq, the crucible of Middle Eastern disruption. Following the U.S. drone-strike killing of Iranian General Soleimani and the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Nato’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, came out predictably with expressions of support for the assassinations.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nobody in the West (and probably precious few elsewhere, other than Iran, if numbers could be independently ascertained) could in any way be supportive of Soleimani and the barbarous forays he directed that resulted in the deaths of so many innocent people. He deserved to be brought to justice — which does not mean that it was morally defensible or legally permissible to kill him.

    And please take a moment to think about the driver of the car he was in, who was also blasted to bits. What possible justification could there have been for killing him? It couldn’t be claimed by even Pompeo or Trump that he had been planning to attack America or Americans. This pawn on the board of revenge was killed by a missile fired by a U.S. attack drone. And he will pass out of memory as quickly as the flash of the explosion that blew him apart. But in terms of morality and international law he is just as important as any general, and responsibility for his death lies firmly at the door of the White House.

    The obvious course of action in the case of Soleimani would have been to institute proceedings for an alleged international criminal to be brought to the attention of the International Court of Justice (ICC), but we can forget that, because the United States “is not a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute and has consistently voiced its unequivocal objections to any attempts to assert ICC jurisdiction over U.S. personnel.” The fact that the ICC “investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression” is objectionable to the Washington Establishment because it is possible that U.S. citizens could be investigated.

    But Stoltenberg, a supposed internationalist, ignores the ICC (which is recognised by only 14 of Nato’s 29 members), and all that he could come up with after the killings was the absurd adjuration that “Iran must refrain from further violence and provocations.”

    The violence was a U.S. drone strike. The provocation was a U.S. drone strike. And the fact that Iranian and Iraqi citizens were butchered in Iraq by a drone-fired missile on the orders of a Nato member country appears to mean nothing to the head of that alliance.

    Stoltenberg probably doesn’t remember that, as pointed out by a perceptive analyst, “NATO is the only organization in modern history that has had significant involvement in the arrest of people indicted by an international criminal tribunal; NATO was instrumental in assisting with arrests for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia” which in the 1990s was a major development. Unfortunately, Nato has moved further and further away from international conventions and legal requirements — as abundantly demonstrated by its catastrophic war against Libya in 2011 — and has been drawn ever closer to the go-it-alone interventionist style of its most powerful member state.

    And now President Trump is calling the shots around the world, which includes demanding that Nato become more deeply involved in the festering quagmire of destruction and despair that the U.S. has created in the Middle East.

    Following a telephone call between Trump and Stoltenberg on January 8, Nato issued a statement that “The President asked the Secretary General for NATO to become more involved in the Middle East. They agreed that NATO could contribute more to regional stability and the fight against international terrorism. They also agreed to stay in close contact on the issue. NATO plays a key role in the fight against international terrorism, including through training missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.”

    What exactly does Trump mean by “more” involved in the shambles he has expanded in the Middle East? More troops? More drones? More extermination of innocent people who happen to be earning their living by driving a car?

    Trump’s emphasis became clearer the day after he spoke with Stoltenberg, when he told reporters at the White House that “I think that NATO should be expanded and we should include the Middle East, absolutely. We can come home, largely come home and use NATO. We caught ISIS, we did Europe a big favour.” In addition to the staggering irony that, as noted by Reuters, the murdered Soleimani “played a major role in the fight against Islamic State militants in the region”, Trump “joked that the organisation could be called NATO-ME, or NATO plus the Middle East. He said he floated the possible name to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.”

    Nato headquarters made no mention of the cretinous “NATO-ME” attempt at humour (if indeed it was that) which is not surprising because some Nato countries were taking action to secure the safety of their troops who Trump’s assassination strike had placed in greater jeopardy of their lives — without informing Nato or any individual member with troops in the region that there was about to be a major escalation in violence in the Middle East.

    On January 7 it was reported that some Nato countries were withdrawing and relocating troops, with Germany moving 30 of its 130 personnel out of the country and Romania “relocating” all of its 14 soldiers. Of Croatia’s 21 troops, 14 were moved to Kuwait and seven returned home. Latvia and Denmark sent their troops to Kuwait, but Britain, with Nato’s largest non-US contingent, of some 400, did not announce any action to safeguard its personnel, and prime minister Boris Johnson unconditionally supported the killing of Soleimani, saying “we will not lament his death.”

    Nobody expected Johnson or any other western politician to say they regretted Soleimani’s killing, and it was a typical Johnson comment — but there are reasons why Johnson constantly supports Trump, not the least of which is the British economy. (Morality and international law are irrelevant.)

    When Britain leaves the European Union it will have to negotiate trade arrangements with many blocs and countries, not the least being the United States. There is therefore no possibility that Johnson would boldly go where many have gone before, and annoy Trump by contradicting him, because the petulant spiteful Trump would immediately refuse to engage in trade discussions.

    Nato is on the UK’s back burner, and if supporting Trump’s policies about the Middle East and Nato is politically necessary, then so be it. Johnson agrees with Stoltenberg’s statement that “For me it’s no surprise that the United States is calling for Nato to do more, because that has actually been the message from the United States for a long time. . . We are looking into what more we can do.” But it is most unlikely there could be a Nato consensus about continuing a presence in Iraq, and if Trump demands additional military commitment by Nato countries, as seems apparent from his statement that “We can come home, largely come home and use NATO” in the Middle East he will put Stoltenberg and Nato nations’ leaders in an impossible situation.

    Nato is floundering in the Middle East, and the best thing it could do would be to withdraw its military forces from the region. They have achieved nothing, and the future is bleak, to put it mildly. Get out now.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/15/2020 – 02:00

  • Saudi Arabia Carried Out Record Number Of Executions In 2019
    Saudi Arabia Carried Out Record Number Of Executions In 2019

    Saudi Arabia’s shortage of executioners didn’t stop the kingdom from carrying out a record number of death sentences in 2019, according to the non-profit Reprieve, which monitors how KSA handles capital punishment.

    According to figures provided to ABC News, KSA executed 184 people last year, including 90 foreign nationals. The most common crime committed by the prisoners who were put to death was drug smuggling (82 were executed for smuggling narcotics) while 57 were executed on murder charges.

    That’s compared to a total of 22 executions in the entire US.

    Notably, KSA has seen a rise in killings since 2015, when Reprieve first started keeping track.

    In 2014, 88 people were executed, with that number nearly doubling to 157 executions in 2015. Executions stayed at around that level until last year, when the state killed 35 more people than they had in 2018.

    As we reported at the time, the Saudis killed 37 people in a single day, including a student who was supposed to be on his way to college in the US, which prompted Rep. Rashida Tlaib to lash out at the kingdom.

    It’s not publicly known how many prisoners are currently on death row in Saudi Arabia. However, among those awaiting “imminent execution” are Ali al-Nimr, Abdullah al-Zaher and Dawood al-Marhoon, all of whom were sentenced to death for their roles in anti-government protests during the Arab Spring, nearly a decade ago.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ali al-Nimr, Abdullah al-Zaher and Dawood al-Marhoon, pictured above

    Maya Foa, Reprieve’s director, called on the US and UK to call out the kingdom’s record of executions in the “strongest possible terms,” arguing that that international pressure “can make a difference.”

    While that may or may not be true, we imagine neither country would be willing to jeopardize such a mutually beneficial relationship.

    Even evidence that Saudi officials were involved in orchestrating 9/11 couldn’t do that.

    Instead, the jump in executions will inevitably be used by human rights advocates to bash Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has tried to enact liberal reforms like allowing women to drive while aggressively eradicating any whiff of criticism (for an example see what happened to dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi).


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/15/2020 – 01:10

  • Globalization – The Most Ancient And Ever-Failing Utopia
    Globalization – The Most Ancient And Ever-Failing Utopia

    Authored by Marin Guentchev and Hristo Guentchev via The Epoch Times,

    Today, many regard the America First doctrine as being treacherous to America’s allies. Actually, the opposite is true. This is why…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Globalization—A New Term for an Ancient Idea

    We still remember the eloquent speaker coming to our school in what was at that time communist Bulgaria. He would argue that internationalism—a concept that seeks to unify all nations—was inevitable. In the mid-1980s, it became clear that the only inevitable outcome of internationalism was failure.

    Around the same time, however, Theodore Levitt, writing in the Harvard Business Review, brought another term into use—”globalization.” To us Eastern Europeans, its resemblance to internationalism was, and still is, very alarming.

    [Note: Despite some differences in definition, the terms imperialism, internationalism, and globalism share one similarity—they all seek to ultimately create a homogeneous humanity by eliminating territorial fragmentation and lifting national boundaries.]

    Today, proponents of globalization argue that it’s a new and unstoppable trend. However, history tells us that the drive toward a homogeneous humanity is perhaps the most ancient, universal, and subconscious utopia that people have sought to achieve.

    So far, every attempt to realize this utopia has failed miserably. We need to recall, for example, the Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar II, Greece under Alexander of Macedon, the Islamic Caliphates, Napoleon’s France, or the USSR.

    Today, nation-states still dominate the world stage. Why? Why does the initial success of globalization always end with a return to a fragmented world?

    Fragmented Humanity—A Judeo-Christian Concept

    The concept of a fragmented humanity is deeply rooted in the Western worldview. The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel—present in both Judaism and Christianity, but not in Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism—describes how God splits up a monolithic humanity into different linguistic groups and spreads them across the world.

    Indeed, with the emergence of language and geographical separation, humanity acquired the essential instruments of group construction, leading to the later rise of nations. The fundamental point here is that—in contrast to other major value systems—Judaism and Christianity view a fragmented humanity as part of a Divine plan.

    Benefits of Fragmentation

    The main advantage of a fragmented world is that it offers a competitive environment for economic, social, and juridical systems—a driving force of human progress. When there is rivalry, especially within a common domain that allows for the exchange of goods, knowledge, and skills, the results can be stunning (e.g., Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy, and pre-Bismarckian Germany).

    The fundamental rejection of a homogeneous humanity is probably one of the reasons why Jews and Christians have produced the most competitive and prosperous period of human civilization. As German sociologist Max Weber wrote in “General Economic History”: “This competitive struggle [among the European nation states] created the largest opportunities for modern western capitalism.”

    Another benefit of fragmentation is that it limits inequality. A certain level of inequality promotes economic growth; yet, excessive disparities may lead to social unrest and revolutions. Price’s Law, which predicts the distribution of wealth in society, states that the square root of a population owns 50 percent of the total output it produces. In other words, inequality is a direct function of the size of the population: The more populous a community, the greater the interpersonal disparities within it.

    Fragmentation of the world may also prevent conflicts by creating a more stable global political environment. A good example is the impact of territorial unification and fragmentation in European politics.

    German historian Ludwig Dehio, in “Gleichgewicht oder Hegemonie,” saw the five hegemonic power-building events in the last five centuries in Europe—Spain of Philip II, France of Louis XIV, Napoleon’s Empire, Germany of Wilhelm II, and the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler—as a direct result of the political instability prompted by the removal of borders and unification.

    The more profound point here is that, in the long term, fragmentation along national borders can actually promote economic progress and political stability, whereas globalization ends up hampering socioeconomic development, increasing inequality, and ultimately provoking large-scale conflicts.

    America First – Snatching Victory from the Jaws of Globalization

    Currently, it appears that global elites are using the resources of the United States and the European Union to pursue globalization by promoting liberal-left values.

    The America First doctrine is a definite sign that President Donald Trump has rejected globalism and embraced economic nationalism. This policy not only strengthens the United States but also sends an explicit message to its allies: “The globalist agenda is dead. Start caring about your own countries!”

    Now America’s allies—confronted with this new reality—are forced to accept that their own countries and citizens will have to come first—an encounter that will make them more self-reliant, less globalist, and ultimately stronger.

    Proof of the success of this policy is the recent unprecedented increase in military spending of almost all European NATO member states.

    Conclusion

    Recent political events—the 2016 Brexit vote, the last U.S. presidential election, the 2019 re-election of the Law and Justice Party in Poland, and Boris Johnson’s landslide election victory in the UK—reveal that this latest attempt at globalization is losing ground.

    If history has taught us anything about globalization, it’s that once on the retreat, it can’t be retrieved—a development that’s tragic for the “progressive” political commissars, but beneficial to ordinary people.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/15/2020 – 00:25

  • Israel "Grounds" Tesla's Autopilot
    Israel “Grounds” Tesla’s Autopilot

    Israel’s Ministry of Transport and Road Safety is worlds ahead of the NHTSA and NTSB in the United States.

    The Israeli organization has decided to “ground” Tesla’s Autopilot feature and has told Tesla that it must notify the country’s customers that they are not allowed to use the car’s autonomous capabilities, according to Israeli publication CTech

    The autonomous driving system was first launched in 2013 and, while only offering limited capabilities, was sold to the world in a presentation where Elon Musk alluded to being able to sleep or watch a movie while driving. Musk has also demonstrated the feature while not abiding by the company’s own rule of needing to maintain the driver’s hands on the steering wheel.

    This has led to a litany of accidents over the last several years, many of which we have documented on this site, involving Autopilot. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (Source: @Keubiko Twitter)

    But the ban in Israel looks to be part of a wider rule application. “Since autonomous driving has not been approved in Israel, the ministry asked the company to make sure its customers are aware of the limitation,” Calcalist reported. 

    Tesla has reportedly received a license to import just 20 cars to Israel in 2020, according to The Jewish Press. The restriction is due to the company not meeting all local bureaucratic licensing criteria, the most important of which is maintaining a local repair center (who would have thought?). 

    While the ban may be part of a wider application, perhaps the NHTSA could learn some “ground-up” common sense from Israel’s Ministry of Transport and Road Safety regardless. If it hasn’t been tested and has been sold as something as it isn’t – why let American citizens beta test these features on open roads full of innocent people?

    And further, how can you stand idly by and ignore the fatal accidents that continue to occur?

    We digress…


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 01/15/2020 – 00:05

  • How The US Runs Iraq
    How The US Runs Iraq

    Authored by Eric Margolis,

    What ever happened to Iraq? Is it not an independent country with a democratic government thanks to the 2003 US invasion? So says Washington.

    The murder of senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani suddenly shone a strobe light on ‘independent’ Iraq, and what we saw was not pretty.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Welcome to the new Imperialism 101.

    Iraq’s population is estimated around 39 million. The pre-war Iraq of 2003 was broken into three parts by the US-British invasion: the Shia majority; Kurds in the north; and Sunnis, with scatterings of other ethnicities. Iraq remains fragmented into hostile groups.

    Its Shia are confusingly allied to the US and Iran. The killing of Maj. Gen. Soleimani by the Americans has thrown this alliance of convenience into confusion. Iraqi Kurds are close to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad intelligence. The Sunnis are left adrift, without any foreign patrons except for other feeble Arab states.

    The US maintains a modest garrison of 5,000 infantry in Iraq and 3-5 air bases, as well as the gigantic fortified US Embassy in Baghdad’s heavily guarded Green Zone which contains one of the world’s largest CIA bases. Angry mobs demonstrating in front of the embassy triggered off the chain of events that led to Trump’s murder of Gen. Soleimani. That an impeached president should be murdering foreign figures is a question that Congress must ask.

    Before he was murdered, Osama bin Laden called this monster Baghdad embassy and its twin in Kabul, `crusader fortresses.’ That is indeed their role, and to serve as the nerve center for all Mideast operations by the US. Iraq enjoys some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Where the profit from Iraq’s mammoth oil exports go remains a closely guarded secret.

    Combined with Saudi Arabia – also controlled by the US – Iraq gives Washington control of the bulk of Mideast oil. The US no longer relies on oil from the Mideast, being self-sufficient – at least for now. But dominating the Mideast gives the US huge influence over China, Japan, India, and Europe, all of whom import oil from there. This is the main pillar of US world power and the supremacy of the dollar.

    Returning to Iraq, Washington has imposed an air exclusivity zone there. Real control of flat, largely barren Iraq comes from the air. US war planes based there and in Qatar can blast anything that moves in Mesopotamia. Imperial Britain ruled Iraq the same way, using the RAF to smash all opposition to the British-installed puppet ruler in Baghdad. In the 1920’s Churchill even authorized the RAF to use poison gas against rebellious Iraqi Kurds (as well as Afghan Pashtun tribes).

    US-ruled Iraq is not allowed to have a real air force, only a handful of light aircraft. The same ban applies to Afghanistan. Iraq’s so-called army, a mob of unruly militias of the type the Ottomans used to call ‘bashi-bazouks,’ is of little military value though partly equipped by US weapons. They are increasingly being attacked by US warplanes.

    The US really runs Iraq from three large air bases that were the target of the recent bloodless Iranian missile attacks. Iraq’s current US-approved prime minister Abdul-Mahdi and its feeble parliament have voted for the ouster of all US forces from Iraq. Good luck to them. Washington will likely ignore Iraq’s supposedly ‘democratic’ government and continue to act as the sultan of Iraq.

    Iraq has become the central military base and inexhaustible oil reservoir for the US that was envisaged by the Bush administration and its neocons. That is a major step in the total US domination of the Mideast and its energy resources.

    Israel has achieved its long sought goal of removing Iraq from the confrontation over Palestine. With Egypt under a US-imposed dictator, that leaves only demolished Syria to stand up to Israel. The Saudis are gleefully stabbing their ‘brother’ Arabs in the back, as they always have done.

    Never in the past half-century have we seen the Arab states so pathetically feeble. Never have we seen Israel so strongly guiding US Mideast policy, including the murder of Gen. Soleimani.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 23:45

  • Major Winter Storm Threatens Millions In Northeast This Weekend
    Major Winter Storm Threatens Millions In Northeast This Weekend

    A powerful winter storm is expected to dump snow and ice across the Midwest and Northeast this weekend. 

    Early indications suggest wintry precipitation is possibly Saturday as the winter storm transitions from Midwest states to the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, while heavy snow could fall in some areas. 

    We noted on Monday how the Global Forecast System (GFS) data shows Old Man Winter will return to the Northeast on Friday with average temperatures from Washington, D.C., to Boston around 25 to 34 degrees. This could make conditions ripe for a snowstorm over the weekend. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The National Weather Service (NWS) is projecting that snow and ice could be seen on early Saturday for Mid-Atlantic states, with mixed precipitation in the afternoon. The further north, the higher the probability of significant snowfall. 

    “Although confidence continues to increase on the potential for a winter storm for parts of our area (above average confidence for this time range, in fact), it is still too early to get into specifics on timing and amounts of different precipitation types given … this is still 4 to 5 days away,” NWS said Tuesday. 

    Henry Margusity, a meteorologist for Weather Madness, provides several weather charts that indicate the storm could quickly impact tens of millions of folks in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast this weekend. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Margusity provides another chart showing the winter precipitation could start early Saturday morning in the Baltimore–Washington Metropolitan Area and move up the Interstate-95 corridor in the Northeast through Saturday afternoon into the evening. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “As you can see on the image above, this will be a widespread snow and ice event covering many states from the Plains to the Northeast. The snow will be in general 1-6 inches but locally 8-9 inch amounts will occur. Ice is probably marginal in this storm as the snow will change to just rain in the changeover locations shown in pink on the map,” Margusity said. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 23:25

    Tags

  • Shocking Number Of Young Americans Say Other Countries Are Better
    Shocking Number Of Young Americans Say Other Countries Are Better

    Authored by Mary Rose Corkery via CampusReform.org,

    Over a third of young Americans do not believe that the United States is the greatest country in the world. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a recent Pew Research poll, 47 percent of Democrat and Democrat-leaning Americans between the ages of 19-29 prefer other countries over the U.S, while 19 percent of Republicans within the same age group agree. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The poll also showed that 36 percent of this age group say other countries are greater than the U.S.

    The survey was conducted as part of a larger study by the Pew Research Center in September about partisanship as “the dividing line in the American public’s political attitudes.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The findings showed that within the age group of 19-29, 47 percent of adult Democrat and Democrat-leaning individuals believe that there are other countries better than the United States, while within the same age group, 19 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning individuals agree. That leaves only 53 percent of young Democrats who prefer the United States to any other country, while 81 percent of young Republicans favor America.

    The same survey found 36 percent of all young Americans within the ages of 19-29 believe other countries are better than the U.S, leaving only 64 percent who believe in American exceptionalism.

    When the same age group was asked their opinion about America being a military superpower, 55 percent of Democrats in the same age group responded that they wouldn’t mind if other countries could be as militarily powerful as the U.S. Even a sizeable percentage of Republicans of the same age group agreed, with 38 percent agreeing with their Democrat counterparts.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 23:05

  • SoftBank Chairman To Help Oversee Construction Of New Indonesian Capital
    SoftBank Chairman To Help Oversee Construction Of New Indonesian Capital

    Indonesia has assembled a star-studded team to oversee the construction of its new capital city on the island of Borneo – a move that’s intended to alleviate some of the pressure on rapidly-sinking Jakarta.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Indonesian President Joko Widodo, known to millions as Jokowi, has selected Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the man whom the NYT recently described as the Arab world’s most powerful ruler, comparing him favorably to Saudi Arabian Crown Prince MbS, to chair the committee responsible for overseeing the construction of the capital.

    Also joining the board: Former UK PM Tony Blair, and – get this – SoftBank Chairman and founder Masayoshi Son.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Indonesia is counting on a mix of private and state-owned entities to bear about 80% of the cost of building the capital, a “cost” that has been estimated at $34 billion. The city’s precarious situation was highlighted again last week after a brutal monsoon flooded Jakarta and the surrounding area.

    The crown prince accepted Jokowi’s offer to lead the committee during a meeting in Abu Dhabi this week where investment deals worth $22.8 billion were signed between companies from the UAE and Indonesia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The fact that the plan to build a new capital is a public-private partnership suggests that these board members were likely picked for one reason: They either have connections around the world, or direct control over billions of dollars of capital.

    Does this mean that SoftBank sees an opportunity to profit in Indonesia? Investing in a new capital city is a bold move, there’s not much in the way of precedent, but a hefty return would help revive SB’s reputation, which took another hit last week following reports that robot-pizza maker Zume, another one of SB’s portfolio companies, has burned through most of its working capital, including a $350 million investment from the company.

    But there’s no question that the government needs to make this new capital work. As one of the world’s largest megacities, Jakarta is extremely overpopulated given the fact that the entire city is build on top of a swamp.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jokowi is hoping private industry and state-run companies will step up and cover at least 80% of the cost of the new city, presumably leaving the Indonesia state on the hook for the rest.

    Hopefully, this process will be better-managed than the WeWork IPO…


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 22:45

  • Cops Acquire "Nasal Ranger" Smell-Amplifier To Crack Down On Marijuana Users
    Cops Acquire “Nasal Ranger” Smell-Amplifier To Crack Down On Marijuana Users

    Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,

    In case after infuriating case, the Free Thought Project has reported on instances of horrifying rights violations all stemming from a police officer claiming to smell a plant. We have seen both women and men sodomized and raped — often times in public — as cops search for this smell. We have seen entire families held hostage, women and children beaten up, rampant sexual assault, and all of it stemming from a plant smell. Now, police are arming themselves with a “smell amplifier” to go after those who’d dare grow or partake in a plant—in a state where recreational marijuana is legal.

    In December 2018, the state of Michigan legalized recreational marijuana. According to the city council in the town of Bessemer, however, the most common complaint from residents in the town is the smell of weed. Despite it being legal, cops are now arming themselves with new smell technology to go after those who dare partake in a legal plant in the legal state.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Daily Globe reported that the Michigan town of Bessemer has voted to spend approximately $3,400 to purchase a device to smell marijuana plants and train police officers in its use.

    “The city of Bessemer stinks,” council member Linda Nelson said.

    “You can smell marijuana everywhere. We’ve got people who can’t sit in their backyard because the smell from their neighbor is so bad.”

    Council Member William McDonald added, “It’s time we do something,” even though he said the cost of the equipment posed some concern for him, the Globe reported.

    As Newsweek reports:

    Michigan law enforcement has been struggling with the ramifications of marijuana use since it was legalized. In November 2019, Newsweek reported that state police were still receiving calls about marijuana smoke and odor but lacked the jurisdiction to investigate them unless they suspect that it was being consumed by underage users.

    While it is legal to grow marijuana in Michigan, the state’s statute mandates that the plants cannot be visible to the naked eye or grown outside of an enclosed, secure area.

    This move by the city to acquire a smell device to catch “stinky” marijuana users and growers highlights a problem that still plagues the United States — the bureaucracy’s addiction to the war on drugs. A recent article out of Forbes pointed out just how bad this problem has become.

    Despite an increasing number of states legalizing marijuana, arrests for the beneficial plant continue to increase. As Forbes reports:

    According to new data released by the FBI in October, there were 663,367 marijuana arrests in the country in 2018.

    That’s one every 48 seconds, and represents an uptick from the 659,700 cannabis busts American police made in 2017, and from 2016’s total of 653,249.

    The jump comes despite the fact that there are now 11 states where marijuana is legal for adults over 21.

    “Americans should be outraged that police departments across the country continue to waste tax dollars and limited law enforcement resources on arresting otherwise law-abiding citizens for simple marijuana possession,” NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said. We agree.

    Now, cops are reverting back to smell technology they used when weed was illegal nationwide. This is a dangerous move in the wrong direction for many reasons.

    As TFTP reported in June, an infuriating video was shared with the Free Thought Project showing North Carolina cops violate the rights of multiple innocent people because one of them smelled marijuana. No marijuana was found, but that didn’t stop cops from holding a family and their guests hostage for over an hour to look for it.

    Also in June, TFTP reported the case of Erica Reynolds, 37, who is seeking $12.5 million in damages accusing police of sexual assault and battery, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The reason for this sexual assault and battery? Cops smelled weed.

    Just last September, TFTP reported on another case in which Chanel Bates, 26, was leaving a restaurant when she was targeted by police who claimed they smelled marijuana. The officers’ olfactory intuition was then used as the justification to detain, savagely beat, and kidnap the entirely innocent woman who had caused harm to no one. The infuriating and disturbing scene was captured on video.

    There is at least one state moving in the right direction, however. As TFTP reported in August, the violence associated with cops claiming to smell weed has gotten so out of hand that one top court in Maryland is doing something about it. The court ruled that police are not justified in searching a person based solely off of the smell of marijuana

    This ruling is a major boon for freedom and will only serve to improve police and citizen interactions by removing one of the ways police can harass individuals. Hopefully it will spread to other states like Texas where tyrant cops like Parris smash in people’s heads for the smell.

    In the land of the free, cops will claim to smell a plant on you and use that claim to violate your body in the most horrific way. And some people still have the audacity to call this “justice.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 22:25

    Tags

  • China Deceleration Continues As Stocks Price-In Massive Rebound
    China Deceleration Continues As Stocks Price-In Massive Rebound

    The World Bank trimmed its global growth forecast for 2020 due to a slowing China and a synchronized global downturn. This comes despite the Fed, ECB, and BoJ injecting upwards of $1.1 trillion into global markets in the past four months, along with cutting rates 80 times in the last 12 months.

    The World Bank’s Global Economic Prospects report slashed 2020 growth by 0.2 percentage points to 2.5% from a June 2019 forecast.

    China’s growth outlook for the year is one of stabilization, with growth expected to slip under the 6% mark. Still, there’s a significant risk that a disorderly unwinding of debt could slow the economy even further.

    Over the last decade, China has been responsible for 60% of the world’s debt creation – and with the country continuing to slow, that doesn’t bode well for a massive global recovery that equity markets have already priced in.

    To get a better view of China’s economy, we turn to Fathom Consulting, who developed the China Momentum Indicator 3.0 (CMI 3.0) that includes twelve measures of economic activity, including retail sales, unoccupied housing, and net trade.

    Fathom has had a deep distrust for China’s official GDP data and created CMI 3.0 as an alternative measure of China’s economic activity.

    CMI 3.0 prints around 4.7%, has stabilized since the middle of last year. There’s no indication that China’s economy will significantly turn up in early 2020, which means the global economy could continue to stagnate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Slowing China has also weighed on crude oil prices.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Auto production in China will continue to slow with a decelerating economy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Global stocks, juiced by trillions of dollars in money printing via central banks and 80 rate cuts, have already priced in a global recovery.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With no massive rebound expected in China in 1H20, this also means the probability of a significant rebound in the US is low. Equity markets are mispriced, thanks to an abundance of central bank liquidity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 22:05

  • The "Last Hurrah" For Central Bankers
    The “Last Hurrah” For Central Bankers

    Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    We’ve all seen zombie movies where the good guys shoot the zombies but the zombies just keep coming because… they’re zombies!

    Market observers can’t be blamed for feeling the same way about former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.

    Bernanke was Fed chair from 2006–2014 before handing over the gavel to Janet Yellen. After his term, Bernanke did not return to academia (he had been a professor at Princeton) but became affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

    Bernanke is proof that Washington has a strange pull on people. They come from all over, but most of them never leave. It gets more like Imperial Rome every day.

    But just when we thought that Bernanke might be buried in the D.C. swamp, never to be heard from again… like a zombie, he’s baaack!

    Bernanke gave a high-profile address to the American Economic Association at a meeting in San Diego on Jan. 4. In his address, Bernanke said the Fed has plenty of tools to fight a new recession.

    He included quantitative easing (QE), negative interest rates and forward guidance among the tools in the toolkit. He estimates that combined, they’re equal to three percentage points of additional rate cuts. But that’s nonsense.

    Here’s the actual record…

    That QE2 and QE3 did not stimulate the economy at all; this has been the weakest economic expansion in U.S. history. All QE did was create asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate that have yet to deflate (if we’re lucky) or crash (if we’re not).

    Meanwhile, negative interest rates do not encourage people to spend as Bernanke expects. Instead, people save more to make up for what the bank is confiscating as “negative” interest. That hurts growth and pushes the Fed even further away from its inflation target.

    What about “forward guidance?”

    Forward guidance lacks credibility because the Fed’s forecast record is abysmal. I’ve counted at least 13 times when the Fed flip-flopped on policy because they couldn’t get the forecast right.

    So every single one of Bernanke’s claims is dubious. There’s just no realistic basis to argue that these combined policies are equal to three percentage points of additional rate cuts.

    And the record is clear: The Fed needs interest rates to be between 4% and 5% to fight recession. That’s how much “dry powder” the Fed needs going into a recession.

    In September 2007, the fed funds rate was at 4.75%, toward the high end of the range. That gave the Fed plenty of room to cut, which it certainly did. Between 2008 and 2015, rates were essentially at zero.

    The current fed funds target rate is between 1.50% and 1.75%. I’m not forecasting a recession this year, but if we do have one, the Fed doesn’t have anywhere near the room to cut as it did to fight the Great Recession.

    I’m not the only one to make that point. Here’s what former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said:

    [Bernanke] argued that monetary policy will be able to do it the next time. I think that’s pretty unlikely given that in recessions we usually cut interest rates by five percentage points and interest rates today are below 2%… I just don’t believe QE and that stuff is worth anything like another three percentage points.

    Summers goes on to call Bernanke‘s speech “a kind of last hurrah for the central bankers.”

    He’s right. But if monetary policy isn’t the answer, what does Summers think the answer is?

    Fiscal policy. The government is going to have to spend money directly into the economy instead of relying upon some trickle-down “wealth effect” to stimulate the economy.

    Here’s what Summers said:

    “We’re going to have to rely on putting money in people’s pockets, on direct government spending.”

    Remember the term “helicopter money”? Milton Friedman coined the term 50 years ago when he made the analogy of dropping money from a helicopter to illustrate the effects of aggressive fiscal policy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s essentially what Summers is advocating. It might sound a lot like the idea behind Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT, but it’s not necessarily the same thing. MMT takes helicopter money to a whole new level, and Summers has actually been highly critical of MMT.

    But the idea of direct government spending to stimulate the economy is the same, and it’s gaining traction in official circles.

    There’s good reason to believe it’s coming to a theater near you. And maybe sooner than you think.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 21:45

  • Half Of All US Restaurants Are Struggling With Rising Labor Costs
    Half Of All US Restaurants Are Struggling With Rising Labor Costs

    In the one year since New York City implemented a mandatory $15 minimum wage, businesses have been struggling with the increased labor costs, Fox News reported previously. “They’re cutting their staff. They’re cutting their hours. They’re shutting down,” said Queens Chamber of Commerce president, Thomas Grech – who reports seeing an uptick in small business closures over the past six to nine months. “It’s not just the rent.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bronx Chamber of Commerce president Lisa Sorin notes that the increase has hurt small businesses the most, while Manhattan employers and their customers can afford to pay more to compensate. “It’s almost like a whirlwind of keep up or get out,” she said. 

    This dynamic was reflected in a Gothamist survey, which revealed that NYC restaurants are ‘thriving’ amid the $15 minimum wage, but acknowledges “Nearly 50 percent of respondents to the Hospitality Alliance’s survey said they would have to eliminate jobs in 2019 to make do.”

    It’s not just New York, however, that is suffering as a result of rising labor costs. According to a new report by Restaurant Dive, nearly half, or 48% of all US restaurants, are finding that rising labor costs have become a major challenge for restaurant operators.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With a historically low employment rate, restaurants are having trouble attracting and retaining quality labor. Low employment means job applicants tend to have the upper hand when it comes to settling for a certain wage or seeking better pay elsewhere.

    Other labor-related pressures involve a new minimum salary for overtime eligibility from the Department of Labor, and growing consumer interest in seeing a $15 minimum wage become federal law. The DOL is also proposing further changes to rules regarding tip pooling and tip credit, which has been a particularly confusing subject for the industry during the past few years.

    Fortunately technological innovations are offering restaurant operators a few ways to tackle some of the labor-related challenges identified in the study. Outback is tapping AI technology to analyze diner interactions with staff, for example, including lobby cameras and wait time tracking. Mangers review the data in real-time so that any poor reviews in the making can be remedied before the guests leave the restaurant.

    Robotics and automation also made a debut in the restaurant space, but luckily for minimum wage workers at least for now, overall adoption has been low especially among large operations that have more difficulty rolling out systems to automate tasks. Small chains, those with less than 50 units, were more likely to say they would use automation in the future. That hasn’t stopped large chains, however. McDonald’s piloted an automated fryer in the kitchen last year as well as voice-activated drive-thrus in Chicago. It’s also introducing automated beverage equipment. The endeavor is designed to reduce customer wait times while making employees’ jobs easier. Freeing them up from some of these more mundane tasks allows them to focus on cultivating a better customer experience through interaction and service. Futurists are betting on robots to take over even more restaurant operations during the coming decade.

    While technology seems to be addressing some of the labor-related pains, training and retention have ample opportunity for improvement as well. A few brands have invested in better training opportunities for employees like Denny’s partnership with Magic Johnson focusing on leadership training and McDonald’s women-focused career excellence and Women in Tech initiatives. To boost retention rates, chains like Starbucks, Noodles & Company, Chipotle, Shake Shack and Sweetgreen bulked up employee benefits last year. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 21:25

    Tags

  • Mike Flynn Withdraws Guilty Plea Due To Government's 'Bad Faith, Vindictiveness, And Breach Of Plea Agreement'
    Mike Flynn Withdraws Guilty Plea Due To Government’s ‘Bad Faith, Vindictiveness, And Breach Of Plea Agreement’

    One week after federal prosecutors changed their tune in the Michael Flynn case – recommending he serve up to six months in prison for lying to investigators regarding his contacts with a Russian diplomat, the former National Security Adviser withdrew his guilty plea Tuesday afternoon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a 24-page court filing, Flynn accuses the government of “bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement,” and has asked his January 28th sentencing date to be postponed for 30 days.

    According to Flynn’s counsel, prosecutors “concocted” Flynn’s alleged “false statements by their own misrepresentations, deceit, and omissions.”

    “It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn, virtually bankrupted him, and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for three years,” the filing continues.

    Prosecutors initially recommended no jail time over Flynn’s cooperation in the Russiagate probes, however they flipped negative on him after he “sought to thwart the efforts of the government to hold other individuals, principally Bijan Rafiekian, accountable for criminal wrongdoing.”

    The 67-year-old Rafiekian, an Iranian-American and Flynn’s former business partner, was charged with illegally acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Prosecutors accused Flynn of failing to accept responsibility and “complete his cooperation” – as well as “affirmative efforts to undermine” the prosecution of Rafiekian.”

    More on this from attorney and researcher @Techno Fog:

    Read the filing below:


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 21:05

    Tags

  • New Video Shows 2 Iranian Missiles Striking Doomed Passenger Jet
    New Video Shows 2 Iranian Missiles Striking Doomed Passenger Jet

    Another video of the moment UIA Flight 752 was blown out of the sky by Iranian missiles has emerged, according to the NYT, which verified the footage before reporting on it.

    For the first time, the world can clearly see two missiles – fired from an Iranian military base 8 miles from the plane – strike the plane less than 30 seconds apart.

    The footage helped answer a question that had perplexed experts: why did air control lose touch with the plane’s transponder just before the crash.

    The plane didn’t go down immediately. After the strike, the plane appears to have tried to circle back toward Tehran’s international airport. But minutes later, it exploded and the debris rained down to earth, narrowly missing the village of Khalaj Abad.

    Somehow, NYT reporters have confirmed that the video was filmed on the roof of a building near the village of Bidkaneh, roughly four miles from he military site.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The NYT also debunked another one of the Iranian government’s claims: That the strike was due to ‘human error’, as one missile operator mistook the plane for a cruise missile. This doesn’t jive with the plane’s flight path: Since it had just taken off, it would have still been ascending, not descending toward a target on the ground, like missiles do.

    The new video was uploaded to YouTube by an unnamed Iranian user at around 2 am on Tuesday. It’s unclear how the times verified the video, but the four bylines attached to the story would suggest that it took some serious legwork. Oddly, the date visible on the footage is “2019-10-17” – years before the day the plane was downed on Jan. 8.

    Despite initially denying the IRGC’s role in bringing down Flight 752, Tehran has tried to spin its response to the attack as ‘transparent’ and fair – largely to quell an outpouring of anger by frustrated Iranians, who took to the streets for a string of protests soon after the incident. However, whoever uploaded the video best be careful: Iranian media have reported that the man who filmed an earlier video of the missile striking the plane has been arrested.

    Watch the video verified by the NYT below:


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 20:45

  • Saxo Bank: "We Are Putting Out An Early Warning: A Sharp Correction In Equities Could Be Imminent"
    Saxo Bank: “We Are Putting Out An Early Warning: A Sharp Correction In Equities Could Be Imminent”

    Submitted by Peter Garnry, Head of Equity Strategy, Saxo Bank

    Equities are getting frothy with short squeeze and momentum accelerating technology stocks higher. This has led to the highest top five concentration in the S&P 500 eclipsing the dot-com bubble in a sign of destabilisation and increased fragility.

    We are putting out an early warning to investors as a sharp correction in equities could be imminent. Our overall longer term view is still positive on equities, but sharp moves up are typically followed by rapid declines. In today’s equity update we also talk about equity valuations and earnings season.

    The first two weeks of the year have seen a tremendous acceleration in technology stocks with the sector by far outperforming all other sectors. As we talk about in today’s Market Call podcast we are witnessing an epic short squeeze in Tesla and other heavily shorted stocks. In higher echelons of the market the FANG+ Index is accelerating at an unprecedented pace showing clear signs of frothy behavior. It mimics the move leading up to the volatility explosion in February 2018. While we laid out our asset allocation view yesterday as overweight Europe and EM equities, and overweight equities vs bonds, the short-term dynamic could get ugly here when the short squeeze and momentum have exhausted itself.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In VIX we are observing a increase in net positioning although from a very low level but could signs that bigger players in the futures and option markets are preparing for increase in volatility. On the other, the forward curve in VIX futures is still not sending any distress signals, but these things change fast and the catalyst may be very subtle.

    The rapid rise of the large US technology stocks has catapulted the five largest stocks on market value to reach an index weight of 18%, the highest level observed in the S&P 500 in 25 years. Increased concentration risk is a clear sign of fragility increasing and the system is destabilizing underneath the surface. It’s historically a recipe for violent moves so it should definitely be on investors’ radar.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As we hinted at in our equity update yesterday the equity valuation expansion might be fueled by investors anchoring their long-term interest rate expectations at a continuing lower level increasing the equity risk premium and hence allowing higher multiples on earnings. With the lower anchoring and dual stimulus coming from the monetary and fiscal side we cannot rule out that equity valuation will reach new all-time highs before the party ends. But the current move seems too aggressive, and the probability of a sudden large drop in equities could happen anytime. Investors should consider reducing equity exposure somewhat here or add some downside protection.

    The earnings season kicks into gear today with the first big names (Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo) reporting Q4 earnings. Consensus is looking for strong EPS y/y figures for JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup due to base effects from a very weak Q4 2018. Wells Fargo which is a more pure banking play is expected to show slightly negative y/y EPS growth. All there financials are expected to show negative q/q growth numbers. But overall analysts are looking for decent numbers from financials compared to other industries. In aggregate S&P 500 is expected to deliver its fourth straight negative y/y EPS growth in Q4 for the first time since the financial crisis. However, the real price action lies in the outlooks which should be improving given the recent macro backdrop and better signs coming out of Asia.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 20:25

  • Navy: Releasing UFO Files Would Cause 'Exceptionally Grave Damage To US National Security'
    Navy: Releasing UFO Files Would Cause ‘Exceptionally Grave Damage To US National Security’

    A trove of classified materials associated with an infamous UFO incident marked TOP SECRET are so sensitive that their release would cause “exceptionally grave damage” to US national security according to the Navy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The files, related to the 2004 encounter between the USS Nimitz and a series of strange, “Tic Tac” shaped UFOs, were sought through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by researcher Christian Lambright, according to VICE’s Motherboard.

    In response, the Navy told Lambright in a letter that it had “discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET. A review of these materials indicates that are currently and appropriate Marked and Classified TOP SECRET under Executive Order 13526, and the Original Classification Authority has determined that the release of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States,” according to the report.

    “We have also determined that ONI possesses a video classified SECRET that ONI is not the Original Classification Authority for,” the letter continues.

    “The Department of Defense, specifically the U.S. Navy, has the video. As Navy and my office have stated previously, as the investigation of UAP sightings is ongoing, we will not publicly discuss individual sighting reports/observations,” Susan Gough, a Pentagon spokesperson, told Motherboard. “However, I can tell you that the date of the 2004 USS Nimitz video is Nov. 14, 2004. I can also tell you that the length of the video that’s been circulating since 2007 is the same as the length of the source video. We do not expect to release this video.” –VICE

    Higher resolution?

    The Navy also wouldn’t comment on higher on whether a higher resolution version of the video existed.

    In November, Popular Mechanics reported that several original witnesses to the Nimitz incident viewed longer, higher resolution footage of the UFO encounter. According to the report, “Gary Voorhis, a Petty Officer who served on the Princeton, a ship in Nimitz fleet, told Popular Mechanics that he “definitely saw video that was roughly 8 to 10 minutes long and a lot more clear.” Others, such as Commander David Fravor, have stated that longer videos of the incident probably do not exist.

    Luis Elizondo, the former Pentagon staffer and the man who played a key role in making the Navy video public, told Motherboard that straightforward messaging does not seem to be the Pentagon’s strong suit. When the New York Times ran its 2017 story concerning the Nimitz UFO incident, it also broke the existence of $22 million dollar UFO investigation program called AATIP, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, and that Elizondo, a career intelligence officer, ran the project. The Pentagon has repeatedly changed its story since then; as recently as last month, the Pentagon said that AATIP had nothing to do with UFOs.

     

    “The Pentagon has a long history of sometimes providing inaccurate information to the American people,” Elizondo said. “This is true as recently as this week regarding the draft memo involving Iran, and two weeks ago when the press finally received the truth about Afghanistan despite 18 years of statements to the contrary.”  –VICE

    “As in the case involving UAPs, I can only hope that the inconsistent message is due to the benign results of a large and cumbersome bureaucracy and not something more nefarious like a cover-up or deliberate misinformation campaign,” added Elizondo, who told the publication that he’s “not able to comment further on the existence of a longer video due to my obligations involving my NDA with the Government and the fact that I am no longer employed with the U.S. Government. However, as I stated before, people should not be surprised by the revelation that other videos exist and at greater length.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 20:05

  • Instability Rising: Why 2020 Will Be Different
    Instability Rising: Why 2020 Will Be Different

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    In 2020, increasing monetary and fiscal stimulus will be the equivalent of spraying gasoline on a fire to extinguish it.

    Economically, the 11 years since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09 have been one relatively coherent era of modest growth, rising wealth/income inequality and coordinated central bank stimulus every time a crisis threatened to disrupt the domestic or global economy.

    This era will draw to a close in 2020 and a new era of destabilization and uncertainty begins.

    Why will all the policies that have worked so well for 11 years stop working in 2020?

    All the monetary/fiscal policies of the past decade were simply extreme versions of tried-and-true policies that central banks and governments have used for the past 75 years to restore growth in a recession or financial crisis: lower interest rates, increase credit/liquidity, and ramp up government spending (i.e. deficit spending) to compensate for declining private-sector spending.

    These policies were designed to be short-term stimulus programs to jump-start the economy out of a slowdown (recession), which typically lasted between 9 and 18 months.

    These policies are now permanent, as the system is now dependent on these policies. Any reduction in central bank stimulus causes a market crash (witness the 20% drop in 2018 as the Fed slowly raised interest rates from near-zero) and any reduction in deficit spending threatens to trigger a recession.

    The problem is that these policies create distortions that cannot be fixed with more of what caused the distortions in the first place: more extreme monetary and fiscal stimulus.

    Systemic distortions include:

    A. Soaring wealth-income inequality across the entire global economy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    B. Dependence on asset bubbles to generate the “wealth effect” that encourages spending by the top 5% who own two-thirds of the assets bubbling higher.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    C. Dependence on asset bubbles to generate capital gains and property tax revenues for state/local governments.

    D. Loss of cost discipline: the solution across the entire spectrum–government, corporate and household–is now to borrow more, not trim costs via innovation or increases in productivity and efficiency.

    E. Reliance on debt to fund spending leads to rising defaults which will collapse the system. (Soaring auto-loan defaults are the canary in the coal mine.)

    F. Zero interest rates have generated over-capacity/over-production as everyone seeks a return on capital by expanding market share. Now there are global gluts in everything from autos to natural gas to electronics.

    G. With the yield on savings now less than zero due to inflation, investors must gamble in the asset-bubble casino as this is only available way to earn a return.

    H. Buffers are thinning. I’ve discussed this in depth over the years; dependence on stimulus lowers systemic resilience, rendering the entire system increasingly vulnerable to a phase-shift that fatally destabilizes the system.

    I. Prior to the 2008-2019 era, the “real economy” of sales, wages and profits led the stock market. Now the stock market dominates the real economy, as the central banks have turned the stock market into the ‘signaling device’ that all is well and the source of bringing demand forward (i.e. the wealth effect).

    In Mohammed El-Erian’s words: “The Fed can’t pull back because it’s worried it will disrupt markets that can be a spillover on the economy. The Fed’s in a lose, lose, lose situation, they can’t stay where they are, they can’t do more, they can’t do less.”

    In Andy Xie’s words: “The Fed has gone from the financial bubble’s hostage to its guardian.”

    J. There are limits on encouraging more borrowing by lowering interest rates to zero. Even at zero interest rates, income must be devoted to paying principal. At some point, all available income is already consumed in debt service. Anecdotally, we’re already there: zombie corporations (that only survive by increasing their debt loads) are becoming more numerous, and households burdened with student loans, auto loans, credit cards and mortgages cannot afford more debt even at zero interest.

    Policy makers are now trapped. Unable to reverse the policies that have created the distortions lest that crash the system, they only have two responses, neither of which actually address the distortions undermining the system:

    1) push extremely distorting policies to new extremes, or

    2) attempt policy-tweaks–higher taxes on the wealthy, etc.–that ignore the causes of the distortions. These policy tweaks are the classic “band-aids treating cancer.”

    The abject failure of these policies (short-term turned into permanent, with all the resulting long-term distortions) is now visible to all, and we’re seeing articles in the most influential mainstream media outlets questioning the current versions of global capitalism; for example, the new issue of Foreign Affairs magazine is devoted to The Future of Capitalism, an implicit confirmation that the current version, dependent on extremes of debt, speculation and stimulus, has no future.

    Is there a way out? No. That these policies have not restored “organic growth” (i.e. growth that isn’t dependent on zero interest rates, speculative bubbles and tens of trillions of dollars in permanent stimulus) must be accepted, along with the need for a painful re-set.

    The odds of this happening are near-zero, as politicians who cause economic pain lose the support of the populace.

    This leaves us with the pain of ever-greater distortions, which will drive economic instability, fragmentation, social disorder and financial crashes.

    Inherently unstable systems can appear stable for quite some time as the instability builds beneath the placid surface.

    In 2020, increasing monetary and fiscal stimulus will be the equivalent of spraying gasoline on a fire to extinguish it. These two charts summarize the disastrous consequences of permanent monetary stimulus: wages’ share of the economy are in relentless decline, while the equally relentless rise of financialization has generated soaring wealth / income inequality that increasingly threatens to rip our society and economy to shreds.

    This essay was drawn from the Musings Reports, which are emailed weekly exclusively to patrons and subscribers.

    *  *  *

    My recent books:

    Audiobook edition now available:
    Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World ($13)
    (Kindle $6.95, print $11.95) Read the first section for free (PDF).

    Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 (Kindle), $12 (print), $13.08 ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

    The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

    Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

    *  *  *

    If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 19:45

  • Trump Slams Apple For Refusing To Unlock Terrorist's iPhone, But FBI Has Other Options
    Trump Slams Apple For Refusing To Unlock Terrorist’s iPhone, But FBI Has Other Options

    President Trump joined Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday, slamming Apple Inc. for refusing to extract data from two iPhones that belonged to the Saudi Air Force Lieutenant who went on a rampage at Naval station Pensacola last month, killing three.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “We are helping Apple all of the time on TRADE and so many other issues, and yet they refuse to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers  and other violent criminal elements,” Trump tweeted, adding “They will have to step up to the plate and help our great Country, NOW! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”

    Barr said during a Monday press conference that Apple had provided no “substantive assistance” to support investigators trying to crack into the smartphones. His comments are part of an ongoing push by the US government to make such assistance standard practice in the future.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “We have asked Apple for their help in unlocking the shooter’s phones. So far, Apple has not given any substantive assistance,” said Barr. “This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence once it has obtained a court order based on probable cause. We call on Apple on other technology companies to help us find a solution so that we can better protect the lives of American people and prevent future attacks.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Yet, according to Bloomberg, the FBI should have no trouble breaking into the phones – as they can go either exploit a range of security vulnerabilities – or they can hire a company such as Grayshift or Cellebrite – the latter of which is an Israel-based, Japanese-owned firm which helped the FBI access data from the phone of the shooter behind a 2016 attack in San Bernardino, California.

    Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, the perpetrator of a Dec. 6 terrorist attack at a Navy base in Florida, had an iPhone 5 and iPhone 7, models that were first released in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Alshamrani died and the handsets were locked, leaving the FBI looking for ways to hack into the devices.

    A 5 and a 7? You can absolutely get into that,” said Will Strafach, a legendary iPhone hacker who now runs security company Guardian Firewall. “I wouldn’t call it child’s play, but it’s not super difficult.” –Bloomberg

    Security expert Neil Brook, who works with law enforcement agencies to unlock devices, did note that it’s possible the specific iOS versions running on the Pensacola shooter’s phones may have patched exploits, making it more difficult to access them – though it would still be possible.

    “If the particular phones were at a particular iOS version, it might be as easy as an hour and boom, they are in. But they could be at an iOS version that doesn’t have a vulnerability,” said Broom.

    According to the report, “Apple and security firms such as Cellebrite play a cat-and-mouse game nowadays. The iPhone maker releases a new device or a new version of its iOS operating system that locks everything down. Then security firms and researchers start probing, and often find ways to hack into the handsets after several months. Those exploits sometimes turn into tools that the FBI and police can use to access data on iPhones.”

    Broom notes that Cellebrite and other security firms would “bend over backwards” to win a government contract.

    “Our technology is used by thousands of organizations globally to lawfully access and analyze very specific digital data as part of ongoing investigations,” Cellebrite said in a statement. “As a matter of company policy we do not comment on any ongoing investigations.”

    Another firm which could help the FBI is Atlanta-based Grayshift, which employs former Apple software security engineer Braden Thomas and has a product called GrayKey.

    A new security flaw known as “Checkm8” affects chips in iPhones released between 2011 and 2017, according to Strafach and other researchers. That includes the iPhone 5 and iPhone 7.

    “With the Checkm8 vulnerability, you should be able to get a forensically sound image of the file system, unless they had a crazy long passphrase,“ Strafach said.

    The iPhone 7 includes the Secure Enclave, a dedicated chip for storing fingerprint data and other sensitive information on the device, but even that could be breakable, he said.

    “It’s simply a question of whether the government will pay a contractor to get into these phones,” Strafach added. “If it can’t be done with the Checkm8 vulnerability, they can pay a contractor to do it.” –Bloomberg

    To crack into phones, Cellebrite offers a “UFED Physical Analyzer” and a “Touch2” tablet which comes with PC software (“4PC”) – all costing around $15,000 per Broom, who added that there’s often an annual maintenance fee of more than $4,000.

    For more advanced services, GrayKey and Cellebrite Premium offer an on-premise service for law enforcement agencies which can cost between $100,000 and $150,000.

    “They already have these tools around the country. So they wouldn’t be paying anything more to break into these phones, they could just be waiting for a certain exploit like Checkm8 to become available,” said Broom.

    That said, according to Yotam Gutman – marketing director at cybersecurity company SentinelOne, newer iPhones such as the iPhone 11 are much harder ‘if not impossible’ to crack… for now.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 19:25

  • Hickman: A Recession Is More Likely Than You Think
    Hickman: A Recession Is More Likely Than You Think

    Authored by Eric Hickman via AdvisorPerspectives.com,

    Good economic news over the last couple months belies the fact that a recession could strike as soon as March 2020.

    That good news has been plentiful: a phase one trade deal between the U.S. and China is presumably close to being signed, the December U.S. Labor jobs report exceeded expectations, the Federal Reserve didn’t lower rates at their December meeting, and developed-economy stock markets continue making new highs. The Fed’s mantra of, “the economy is in a good place” is the ethos of the moment.

    But just behind those data points, many more are suggesting a deteriorating economy. The Citigroup U.S. Surprise index (which measures how far the aggregate of economic releases are above or below where economists estimate them to be) has fallen in recent months (see below). ISM Manufacturing, Durable Goods, Retail Sales, Leading Economic Indicators, and Existing Home Sales have all been lower than expectations in December and early January.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And yet the Fed repeats a version of the statement, “the economy is doing well because consumer spending and the labor market are strong”. And they are right – for now. Real personal consumption is growing at a reasonably healthy 2.4% (YoY%) and the 3.5% unemployment rate is at a near-50 year low (49.6 years). The problem is that these are the last segments of the economy to falter historically at the start of a recession. To the extent that the recession hasn’t started yet (I don’t think it quite has), the consumer and labor market should still be strong. In other words, there is an expected gap of time from when leading indicators (manufacturing, yield curve) show weakness to when coincident indicators (consumer and labor) show weakness. There is nothing to suggest one should extrapolate this consumer and labor strength, especially given the many leading recession signals we’ve already gotten.

    In fact, the following five long-running standard recession signals triggered in 2019:

    • Yield curve inversion, signaled 3/27/2019, data back to January 1971.

    • Conference Board Jobs Gap YoY growth negative2, signaled 11/30/2019, data back to February 1968.

    • Conference Board Leading Economic Indicators Peak3, signaled 7/31/2019 (tentative because it could make a higher peak), data back to January 1959.

    • Initial Jobless Claims Trough4, signaled 4/12/2019 (tentative because it could make a lower trough), data back to January 1967.

    • ISM Manufacturing first below 505 (contraction), signaled 8/31/2019, data back to January 1948.

    The long history (49+ years) of these indicators can be used to get a sense of timing for when a recession may begin. I have measured historically how long these indicators signaled before (or after) the start of their accompanying recession. Comparing this time-frame to when these indicators triggered recently, suggests a range for when this recession may come. The chart below shows the time ranges (minimum amount of time historically to maximum amount of time historically) in which each indicator would suggest a recession start.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There are a few conclusions to this.

    • First, five recession indicators have signaled.

    • Second, there is nothing unusual in the timing that the recession hasn’t started yet.

    • Third, no matter which of the five indicators you use, a recession will likely begin in 2020 and the average center-point of the indicators is in March, just a little over two months away.

    Don’t confuse the Fed’s “on-hold” stance to have any more meaning than the hope that the consumer and labor market’s strength will continue. History suggests that this is not a good bet to make.

    *  *  *

    Eric Hickman is president of Kessler Investment Advisors, Inc., an advisory firm located in Denver, Colorado specializing in U.S. Treasury bonds.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 01/14/2020 – 19:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest