Oct 26

Today’s News 26th October 2019

  • The Deep State Is Assassinating Julian Assange
    The Deep State Is Assassinating Julian Assange

    Authored by Aaron Kesel via ActivistPost.com,

    WikiLeaks founder and journalist Julian Assange appeared in court to fight his extradition to the United States, sluggishly reciting his name and date of birth in a zombie-like state — displaying signs of either sleep deprivation, torture or poisoning — but quickly recovered to state the rigged case against him to the judge when he was asked if he understood what he was facing.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Assange responded, appearing to fight back tears at his case management hearing, “I can’t think properly, I don’t understand how this is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t access my writings. It’s very difficult where I am to do anything but these people have unlimited resources.” The WikiLeaks Founder added, “They are saying journalists and whistleblowers are enemies of the people. They have unfair advantages dealing with documents. They know the interior of my life with my psychologist. They steal my children’s DNA. This is not equitable what is happening here?”

    Assange was also denied a 90-day extension to prepare his defense as governments rig yet another case against the WikiLeaks journalist, proving the death of real justice and right to a fair trial in the UK is corroborated with the death of journalism and ethics. In other words, the cards are stacked against Assange; the state has committed numerous illegal moves, yet the man’s defense can’t do anything because the state isn’t playing by the rules by showing a total bias, court action after court action.

    Westminster Magistrates’ Court district judge Vanessa Baraitser further highlighted that rigging by adhering to the behest of government prosecutor James Lewis QC who was firmly against the judge giving Assange any extra time to prepare his case, as The Guardian reported.

    As The Canary reports:

    Clearly, the full weight of the British and US state apparatus is bearing down on the WikiLeaks founder in this extradition case. That was made explicitly clear in a statement by Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture, in May. He urged the UK not to extradite Assange to the US, saying:

    In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.

    Assange’s legal team also accused the U.S. of attempting to “kidnap and harm” the WikiLeaks founder and used that as reasoning for delaying the trial, Sky News reported.

    Mark Summers, one of Assange’s lawyers, described the extradition bid as “a political attempt” by Donald Trump’s administration to “signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information.”

    “It is legally unprecedented,” he told the court.

    Summers further claimed the U.S. had “intruded” on conversations between Assange and his lawyers while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, and the intrusions included “hooded men breaking into offices.”

    This is something similar to what we saw with the raiding of the Head Legal Office in Madrid of former judge and WikiLeaks’ chief counsel, Baltasar Garzón in December 2017. Garzón’s office was raided by masked men dressed in all black and the security cameras were taped. Despite the break-in, nothing was taken and the operation was referred to as being “professionally done” by police.

    In January of this year, police began questioning associates of WikiLeaks worldwide offering immunity to testify against Assange.

    Assange’s Health Condition

    Earlier this year, a crazy claim took the internet by storm made by a retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski who wrote that they are “treating Assange with the Zombie drug BZ (3-quinuclidinyl benzilate) to kill his brain cells” according to an insider source. Whereas at the time that statement sounded insane, the display in court by Assange may warrant looking at that claim again with a fresh view. This information may be shocking to some, but journalist Danny Casolaro who stood against The Octopus (DEEP STATE) was killed by a toxic poison that was injected into his spine, then his wrists were sliced 12x on each hand. We also know from former CIA employee Mary Embree that the infamous heart attack gun exists and the agency was researching other silent assassination slow kill methods, so that possibility isn’t as crazy as it all may sound.

    A source who claims to have seen the WikiLeaks founder described Assange as “out of it and in an zombie like state.” Russian news station RT corroborated this claim, showing Assange in a police transportation van appearing to show a weakened state of health in just his physical appearance.

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

    Craig Murray, a friend of Assange and former politician, also stated in a recent article that the WikiLeaks journalist could be subjected to torture or chemical injections, corroborating Kwiatkowski’s claims about torturous intimidation allegations. Murray wrote, “it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.”

    Murray writes:

    Until yesterday I had always been quietly skeptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

    I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

    The WikiLeaks former editor has been in the Belmarsh prison hospital shortly after being incarcerated, which followed with a quick deterioration of his health. Assange still remains in the medical ward, according to his father John Shipton in a recent interview with Going Underground‘s Afshin Rattansi.

    Although, this may be due to the bombardment of surveillance technologies that were being used illegally on Assange while in the Ecuadorian embassy for asylum, where he has been for the past 6 years, despite two different UN rulings calling the detainment “arbitrary detention.”

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

    In fact, last year, Christine Assange used Unity4J to urge officials to allow her son access to medical attention, and for the UK and Ecuador to end Assange’s then illegal 8-year detainment (2 years of virtual house arrest, 6 years confined inside the Ecuadorian embassy.)

    For the past 6 years while Assange was in the embassy, the UK government  refused his request for access to basic health needs: fresh air, exercise, sunshine for vitamin D and access to proper medical and dental care according to Christine Assange and Julian Assange’s lawyer, Greg Barns.

    As a result, his health has seriously deteriorated; and his examining doctors warn these detention conditions are life-threatening.

    “The slow and cruel assassination is taking place before our very eyes in the embassy in London,” Christine expressed at the time and that statement still holds true.

    Assange’s doctor, Sean Love, previously stated in an opinion piece that depriving his patient of medical care is “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” Adding, “It is time for Australia to intervene.”

    Other doctors who have previously examined Assange, Sondra Crosby, an associate professor at Boston University’s school of medicine and public health, and Brock Chisholm, a clinical psychologist in London have stated much the same.

    All three once called on safe passage for Assange to a hospital. In an article for the Guardian, they wrote:

    While the results of the evaluation are protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, it is our professional opinion that his continued confinement is dangerous physically and mentally to him and a clear infringement of his human right to healthcare.

    Assange has had a persistent chronic lung condition for several years, and his ‘frozen shoulder’ issues were talked about as having possible implications of a heart condition. So Assange has a list of health problems, from being prevented sunlight and exercise while he was holed up in the embassy. Although, it’s not known why he was taken to Belmarsh’s prison medical ward. He should immediately be taken to a hospital where full care can be administered instead of limited care inside a prison ward.

    It has now been 9 long years that governments have been torturing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; it is without a doubt their responsibility for the man’s health deteriorating whether he is currently being poisoned or previously poisoned by radiation from the surveillance technology.

    As former Reagan Administration Paul Craig Roberts said in 2011, there is a clear and concerted effort to shut Assange up.

    Assange’s doctors saw him last year in December shortly before his arrest in April; however, his condition was not made public out of respect for confidentiality. Instead, Assange is gifted hospital care in a prison known for torturing its inmates, which include past terrorists. After the WikiLeaks publisher was put under Belmarsh prison “care,” WikiLeaks said that it was “gravely concerned” over the state of Assange’s health.

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

    Assange is being held in Belmarsh prison after the Met Police arrested him in April over a defunct bail warrant in the UK.  The U.S. is seeking his extradition from the UK for prosecution over WikiLeaks’ journalistic work with Cablegate, Iraq and Afghanistan war logs leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning as an Army analyst.

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

    RIGGED JUSTICE AND SMEARS

    The warrant issued in question in Sweden arose 12 days after Julian entered the Ecuador Embassy seeking asylum from U.S. threats against his life and liberty. So the warrant should never have been issued in the first place, as asylum/international law overrides domestic (UK) law.

    Instead, the allegations should have been dropped after Sweden dropped its preliminary investigation and Julian wasn’t charged, as the warrant was attached to the European Arrest Warrant on that case. Both women, Sophia Wilen and Anna Ardin, in that case have confessed that the police made up the charges, while Ardin has very curious connections to the CIA and the Swedish embassy, Activist Post reported.

    Judge Emma Arbuthnot (the wife of former UK Defence Minister Lord James Arbuthnot) also rejected arguments presented by Assange’s legal team over why he breached bail conditions by seeking political refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012. A conflict of interest which caused many to speak out about on social media.

    After Julian Assange was sentenced in a Kangaroo Court in London for “skipping bail” for 50 weeks of a defunct bail warrant and fraudulent rape case, as well as having his first hearing on his extradition trial, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden expressed, “it is not just a man who stands in jeopardy, but the future of the free press.”

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

    However, according to reports, the Swedish rape case was reopened at the request of an alleged victim’s lawyer. There is a third woman, according to Euronews and The Intercept, who stated that the woman has thus far been “unidentified.” At this point, given the two other cases being manipulated and fraudulent, it would not be surprising if this were another set up against Assange like the infamous Todd And Claire garage-run operation calling Assange a pedophile in the 2016 election. The woman’s lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz none the less says that her client welcomed re-opening the Swedish investigation.

    One of Assange’s own lawyers expressed in May that after his client was put into the medical ward “it was not possible to conduct a normal conversation with him to build his defense,” Per Samuelson told reporters after visiting Belmarsh.

    It is also worth mentioning that a motion to delay a hearing in Sweden on the provably fraudulent rape allegations (which this reporter has exposed) was also denied around the same time period. This denial of extending the Swedish hearing is compounded with originally denying lawyers access to court transcripts of statements to copy, pushing his defense to have to read documents and then remember what was said to write it up by memory. Which, obviously would create a flimsy defense by design.

    Assange has never been formally charged in the investigation with rape, despite mainstream media reports libeling and defaming him by pushing a biased narrative that Assange is a “rapist.”  Biased because the establishment ignores evidence that exonerates him, as WikiLeaks has pointed out in past tweets.

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

    In 2012, the UK Supreme Court acknowledged that Assange was not charged in Sweden. The prosecutor further acknowledged in correspondence with UK authorities that the matter is a ‘preliminary investigation’, and that no decision had been made to charge. Sweden attempted to drop the investigation in 2013, but was told not to by the UK CPS, which also discouraged Sweden from interrogating Assange in the UK despite it being routine for Sweden and standard practice throughout the EU. The CPS destroyed key emails relating to Assange’s Swedish extradition, an investigation by Stefania Maurizi showed according to Justice4Assange, a website created for accurate information in the defense of Julian Assange ran by Hanna Jonasson.

    Ironically enough, past research indicates that the Swedish Court of Appeals originally refused to force the prosecutor to hand over SMS messages as WikiLeaks documents on Twitter.

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

    Surveillance By CIA Contractors and Threats Of Assassination

    If that’s not enough, Assange has been spied on and the suspects at the time had tried to extort 3,000,000 million euro from the journalism organization for the destruction of the videos and pictures, which included videos of private situations such as doctors visits and lawyers meetings while he was in the embassy, Reuters reported.

    Since then, police have made at least one arrest of the ring leader named Jose Martin Santos, previously convicted for fraud, arrested in Alicante for trying to bribe WikiLeaks for millions in exchange for private videos of Assange.

    That plot was later further tied to the CIA who hired UC Global S. L. and its founder David Morales to spy on Assange according to court documents that were presented to Spain’s High Court, El Pais reported.

    UPDATE: As this article went to press Spanish Judge José de la Mata requested to interview the WikiLeaks founder by videoconference as a witness, however, the British judicial system stepped in denying the request, which could affect Assange’s extradition trial, El Pais reported. 

    Just another example of the rigging that is going on against Julian Assange preventing him from forming a defense to defend against his extradition, this is all without a doubt unprecedented.

    Its also worth noting that, as Elizabeth Lea Vos reports for Consortium News in her piece “Julian Assange’s Nightmarish Future,” the last time Assange was in a British prison he had metal put into his food which chipped his tooth.

    “The last time Assange was held in a British prison, in 2010, he says that he was given food containing metal objects that severely damaged a tooth. This was at London’s HM Prison Wandsworth.The incident caused serious injury and he did not receive proper medical treatment during the six and a half years of  his confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy. A medical report published by WikiLeaks in 2015 describes Assange’s version of the event,” Vos wrote.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Before Assange was arrested he’s documented stating in a leaked transcript: “I am an assassination risk. It’s not a joke. It is a serious business.” He added, “There have been attempts by people to get into this embassy through the windows at night.”

    In 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted that it took UK police two hours to respond to a call after an unidentified man attempted to scale the wall of the Ecuadorian Embassy in the U.K. at 2:47 am. The would-be intruder escaped security and managed to flee to safety while embassy security waited two hours for U.K. police to take the two-minute walk from the police station to the embassy.

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

    Assange’s Future Fate Is In Our Hands

    Assange was ordered to remain in prison even though his 50-week prison sentence ended on September 22, over concerns that he will evade the U.S. extradition request due to his “history of absconding,” according to the BBC.

    “In my view, I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again,” said Westminster Magistrates’ Court District Judge Vanessa Baraitser.

    Assange faces 175 years in the United States if convicted of exposing war crimes and various corruption within the United States, 17 charges of which are under the Espionage Act, as part of the WikiLeaks grand jury indictment. That indictment was accidentally made public after a copy-paste slip-up error by the Eastern District of Virginia courts mixed up cases, as Activist Post reported.

    In total, Assange faces 18 charges including a charge under the CFAA for “computer hacking” by helping his source Chelsea Manning protect herself against being discovered, as Activist Post previously reported.

    It is pretty blatantly obvious that the state seeks to “assassinate” Julian Assange, be it his character through using the media, or harming the WikiLeaks founder directly.

    Activists worldwide aim to use the Anonymous celebration of Guy Fawkes day on November 5th to highlight the WikiLeaks founder’s current plight and fight for freedom of the press against U.S. extradition now set for trial in February 25th of next year. Meanwhile, rappers Lowkey and MIA plan to perform a concert in front of the UK Home Office. Former home secretary Sajid Javid signed an order in June allowing Assange to face extradition to the U.S. over the allegations relating to his journalism. Assange’s pre-hearing is on December 19th where he will begin his last case management preparation for trial only two months later.

    It sure does appear that Assange is being put through the Stratfor, Palantir and HB Gary plan for WikiLeaks.

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

    If extradited, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer has continuously said Assange could be exposed to “a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Melzer has also stated that Assange has deliberately been exposed, “for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.”

    As journalist Catlin Johnstone, pointed out, Melzer had two interviews by Sky News and BBC World censored on his opinion on Assange as a UN Rapporteur on Torture.

    What many don’t realize is that it is all journalists who are at risk, not just those who worked with WikiLeaks but every journalist around the world. The state of journalism now sits in the hands of a rigged court that won’t even provide an award-winning journalist ample time to form a defense against the abhorrent crime of doing journalism and publishing the truth.

    To truly understand the mark Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks team has made on the world, watch this heart-wrenching video of Nobel Peace Prize Winner Mairead Maguire speaking on the imprisonment of her longtime friend Julian Assange during her acceptance speech for the GUE/NGL journalism award in his honor.

    Supporters are asked to donate to the numerous defenses for WikiLeaks by visiting this link or purchasing merchandise from the WikiLeaks Shop, which goes towards Assange and other WikiLeaks volunteers’ defenses and future releases.

    For up-to-date accurate information on Julian Assange’s plight, see @Wikileaks, @AssangeMrs, @DefendAssange and @Unity4J and Assange’s lawyers Twitter accounts far too many to list, most notably the editor of Justice4Assange — @AssangeLegal. The Unity4J Twitter account will be up to date with information, live streams, and the Pinterest account will detail places where protests will be held in support of Julian Assange above and beyond his birthday.

    Also, see the Candles4Assange account for further information on protests, the global movement to “stop the war on journalism.”

    As Assange has said in his own words in a letter, “Everyone else must take my place! I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself: no laptop, no internet, ever, no computer, no library, so far, but even if I get access, it will just be for a half an hour, with everyone else, once a week,” Assange wrote. “The other side? A superpower that has been preparing for 9 years, with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/26/2019 – 00:00

  • This "Holy Grail" Bottle Of Scotch Whisky Just Sold For £1.5 Million
    This "Holy Grail" Bottle Of Scotch Whisky Just Sold For £1.5 Million

    The “alternative asset” market seems to still be in a boom, judging by the bid for one rare bottle of Scotch whisky. 

    A bottle of Macallan 1926 60-year-old single malt from cask number 263 sold for a world record £1.5M at auction in London, according to the BBC. Sotheby’s, who held the auction, didn’t release the name of the buyer. 

    This sum dwarfs the previous record for a single bottle of scotch, which stood at £1.2M and was set by another bottle of Macallan from the same cask that was sold last November. Sotheby’s described the Macallan 1926 from cask number 263 as the “holy grail” of whisky. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The cask was distilled in 1926 and bottled in 1986. It yielded only 40 bottles. Sotheby’s said at auction that the bottle featured was part of the “ultimate whisky collection”, which consisted of 467 bottles across 394 lots. The collection sold for £7,635,619, which was double its pre-auction estimate. 

    The auction marked Sotheby’s first offering of spirits from a single owner. 

    Jonny Fowle, Sotheby’s spirits specialist, concluded: “This fantastic result is testament to the quality of the collection. It was remarkable to see so many iconic bottles break records – homage to the importance of distilleries such as Bowmore, Brora, Springbank and, of course, The Macallan.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 23:40

    Tags
    Human Interest

  • The United States, Turkey, & The SDF: The Internal War Between Syria's Enemies
    The United States, Turkey, & The SDF: The Internal War Between Syria's Enemies

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The truth is that in addition to Turkey, the US, the UK, France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have armed, financed and trained about 250 thousand jihadis from all around the world since 2010 for the purposes of attacking Syria, precipitating a disaster in the region, with repercussions felt in Europe, and committing crimes against humanity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Syrian Arab Army, with the assistance of its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies, has managed to overcome the depredations of al-Qaeda and ISIS, confining them to the Idlib region, creating in the process some problems for the countries that armed and supported these monsters.

    One of these problems lies with two of NATO’s most important countries, and the respective factions that they support in Syria.

    Ankara considers the PKK-affiliated YPG to be a terrorist organization, using the jihadis of al-Nusra Front, Daesh, al-Qaeda and the FSA to attack areas under the control of Damascus in order to exterminate the Kurds.

    Before the alt-media started to talk about the use of terrorists against Syria, the complaints emanating from Damascus about what was going on were dismissed as propaganda. Now the mainstream media is all of a sudden beside itself with concern for the wellbeing of the Kurds. When Syrian civilians were under similar assault, the likes of CNN and other international media created a smokescreen to prevent people from understanding what was happening in Syria. Such deliberate obfuscation has caused thousands of deaths that are no less heinous than those committed by Daesh.

    Behind the obfuscating fog is the fact that the United States helped create Daesh in Iraq and used them in 2012 as a weapon against Damascus, in full coordination with Erdogan. Dozens of jihadist groups were armed and equipped to support US plans to destroy Syria.

    Washington is a master at creating “problems” (al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) for its own geo-political purposes that require the ready-made solution. However, when things do not go to plan, there is a Plan B to fall back on in order to justify an illegal presence under the pretense of fighting terrorism.

    Syria was subjected to just this gameplan. But with Damascus getting the better of Daesh, the Pentagon had to fall back on Plan B, which involved the occupation of northern Syria, under the pretext of protecting the Kurds from Daesh as well as advancing the noble quest of fighting terrorism. It is only thanks to the complacency of the mainstream media that such heights of contradiction have been achieved.

    The SDF and the YPG illegally occupy Syria under the enabling umbrella of the illegal presence of the US, which hoped to use these proxies to partition Syria through the cause of Kurdish separatism.

    Interestingly, the mainstream media never reveals that a good deal of Syria’s Kurds, who have been living for months in areas under the control of Damascus, actually support the Assad government.

    Unsurprisingly, the SDF and YPG are supported politically by many Western countries seeking to partition Syria in favor of a Kurdish enclave. Israel, even as it destroys the lives of millions of Palestinians, shamelessly demands self-determination for the Kurds in Syria.

    The SDF masters in Washington understand well that without a force on the land controlled by them, they could not prevent Assad from reuniting the country and taking over the a commercial, economic and energy connection project between Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran, with the Beijing Economic blessing that intends to invest / grant lines of credit of more than 600 billion dollars between Iran, Syria and Iraq.

    The only legitimate authority in Syria that is able to guarantee the safety of civilians from the depredations of Daesh, the FSA, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and all the other 256 iterations of jihadists (none of whom is “moderate”) is the Syrian Arab Army and its central government in Damascus.

    Turkey, the SDF and the United States are three irregular, illegal and illegitimate occupants of Syrian soil who are fighting in the midst of thousands of civilians and are causing death and destruction that could easily be avoided.

    The international political and media reaction to events happening in Syria confirms in my mind that there is an internal wrangle between the United States, Turkey and the SDF stemming from their defeat at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army and allies; a win for civilization.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 23:20

    Tags
    Politics

  • The World's Best And Worst Pension Funds
    The World's Best And Worst Pension Funds

    With the global population aging at a rapid pace (research has determined that the percentage of the population over the retirement age will grow to 20% by 2070, up from 9% today), understanding the durability of the world’s pension funds is of growing importance.

    Hence, the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, a study of 37 retirement income systems covering more than 63% of the world’s population, has been created to reflect the “great diversity between the systems around the world with scores ranging from 39.4 for Thailand to 81.0 for the Netherlands.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pension funds are not only a critical source of retirement income, they play a significant role in financial markets, mandating a growing need for accurate information about the comparisons between different countries, said Martin Pakula, Australia’s minster for jobs, innovation and trade, in a preface released with the study.

    Here’s how the index works: The overall index value for each system represents the weighted average of three sub-indices. The weightings used are 40% for the adequacy sub-index, 35% for the sustainability sub-index and 25% for the integrity sub-index which have remained unchanged since the first Index was published back in 2009.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This year’s study confirmed that the Netherlands and Denmark again received A-ratings, confirming that they remain the best systems and most sustainable pension systems.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Below, is a run-down of all the country’s included in the study and their numerical ranking (in alphabetical order). 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And this chart shows the letter grade received by each…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Part four of the study includes several recommendations for how low-scoring systems can improve (text courtesy of the study):

    • ƒIncrease the state pension age and/or retirement age to reflect increasing life expectancy, both now and into the future, thereby reducing the costs of publicly financed pension benefits3.ƒ
    • Promote higher labour force participation at older ages which will increase the savings available for retirement and limit the continuing increase in the length of retirement.
    • Encourage or require higher levels of private saving, both within and beyond the pension system, to reduce the future dependence on the public pension while also adjusting the expectations of many workers.
    • Increase the coverage of employees and/or the self-employed in the private pension system, recognising that many individuals will not save for the future without an element of compulsion or automatic enrolment.
    • Reduce the leakage from the retirement savings system prior to retirement thereby ensuring that the funds saved, often with associated taxation support, are used for the provision of retirement income.
    • Review the level of public pension indexation as the method and frequency of increases are critical to ensure that the real value of the pension is maintained, balanced by its long-term sustainability.
    • Improve the governance of private pension plans and introduce greater transparency to improve the confidence of plan members.

    While also charting an “interesting” relationship between household debt and the relative performance of a country’s pension system, implying that household debt is higher in nations with better-performing pension systems – the so-called “wealth effect.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Regular Zero Hedge readers are no doubt familiar with our pension coverage, especially as the largest pension funds in the US are on track to miss their targets again in 2019, just look at how much risk remains around the world, as underfunded pensions far outnumber their well-funded peers.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 23:00

    Tags
    Social Issues
    Labor

  • Can The US Beat China In A "Trade War"?
    Can The US Beat China In A "Trade War"?

    Authored by Andre Vltcheck via Off-Guardian.org,

    It is very popular these days to talk and write about the “trade war” between the United States and China. But is there really one raging? Or is it, what we are witnessing, simply a clash of political and ideological systems: one being extremely successful and optimistic, the other depressing, full of dark cynicism and nihilism?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the past, West used to produce almost everything. While colonizing the entire planet (one should just look at the map of the globe, between the two world wars), Europe and later the United States, Canada and Australia, kept plundering all the continents of natural resources, holding hundreds of millions of human beings in what could be easily described as ‘forced labor’, often bordering on slavery.

    Under such conditions, it was very easy to be ‘number one’, to reign without competition, and to toss around huge amounts of cash, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating local and overseas ‘subjects’ on topics such as the ‘glory’ of capitalism, colonialism (open and hidden), and Western-style ‘democracy’.

    It is essential to point out that in the recent past, the global Western dictatorship (and that included the ‘economic system) used to have absolutely no competition. Systems that were created to challenge it, were smashed with the most brutal, sadistic methods. One only needs recall invasions from the West to the young Soviet Union, with the consequent genocide and famines. Or other genocides in Indochina, which was fighting its wars for independence, first against France, later against the United States.

    *

    Times changed. But Western tactics haven’t.

    There are now many new systems, in numerous corners of the world. These systems, some Communist, others socialist or even populist, are ready to defend their citizens, and to use the natural resources to feed the people, and to educate, house and cure them.

    No matter how popular these systems are at home, the West finds ways to demonize them, using its well-established propaganda machinery. First, to smear them and then, if they resist, to directly liquidate them.

    As before, during the colonial era, no competition has been permitted. Disobedience is punishable by death.

    Naturally, the Western system has not been built on excellence, hard work and creativity, only. It was constructed on fear, oppression and brutal force. For centuries, it has clearly been a monopoly.

    *

    Only the toughest countries, like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Cuba, have managed to survive, defending they own cultures, and advancing their philosophies.

    To the West, China has proved to be an extremely tough adversary.

    With its political, economic, and social system, it has managed to construct a forward-looking, optimistic and extraordinarily productive society. Its scientific research is now second to none. Its culture is thriving. Together with its closest ally, Russia, China excels in many essential fields.

    That is precisely what irks, even horrifies the West.

    For decades and centuries, Europe and the United States have not been ready to tolerate any major country, which would set up its own set of rules and goals.

    China refuses to accept the diktat from abroad. It now appears to be self-sufficient, ideologically, politically, economically and intellectually. Where it is not fully self-sufficient, it can rely on its friends and allies. Those allies are, increasingly, located outside the Western sphere.

    *

    Is China really competing with the West? Yes and no. And often not consciously.

    It is a giant; still the most populous nation on earth. It is building, determinedly, its socialist motherland (applying “socialism with the Chinese characteristics” model). It is trying to construct a global system which has roots in the thousands of years of its history (BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, often nicknamed the “New Silk Road”).

    Its highly talented and hardworking, as well as increasingly educated population, is producing, at a higher pace and often at higher quality than the countries in Europe, or the United States. As it produces, it also, naturally, trades.

    This is where the ‘problem’ arises. The West, particularly the United States, is not used to a country that creates things for the sake and benefit of its people. For centuries, Asian, African and Latin American people were ordered what and how to produce, where and for how much to sell the produce. Or else!

    Of course, the West has never consulted anyone. It has been producing what it (and its corporations) desired. It was forcing countries all over the world, to buy its products. If they refused, they got invaded, or their fragile governments (often semi-colonies, anyway) overthrown.

    The most ‘terrible’ thing that China is doing is: it is producing what is good for China, and for its citizens.

    That is, in the eyes of the West, unforgiveable!

    *

    In the process, China ‘competes’. But fairly: it produces a lot, cheaply, and increasingly well. The same can be said about Russia.

    These two countries are not competing maliciously. If they were to decide to, they could sink the US economy, or perhaps the economy of the entire West, within a week.

    But they don’t even think about it.

    However, as said above, to just work hard, invent new and better products, advance scientific research, and use the gains to improve the lives of ordinary people (they will be no extreme poverty in China by the end of 2020) is seen as the arch-crime in London and Washington.

    Why? Because the Chinese and Russian systems appear to be much better, or at least, simply better, than those which are reigning in the West and its colonies. And because they are working for the people, not for corporations or for the colonial powers.

    And the demagogues in the West – in its mass media outlets and academia – are horrified that perhaps, soon, the world will wake up and see the reality. Which is actually already happening: slowly but surely.

    *

    To portray China as an evil country, is essential for the hegemony of the West. There is nothing so terrifying to London and Washington as the combination of these words: “Socialism/ Communism, Asian, success”. The West invents new and newer ‘opposition movements’, it then supports them and finances them, just in order to then point fingers and bark: “China is fighting back, and it is violating human rights”, when it defends itself and its citizens. This tactic is clear, right now, in both the northwest of the country, and in Honk Kong.

    Not everything that China builds is excellent. Europe is still producing better cars, shoes and fragrances, and the United States, better airplanes. But the progress that China has registered during the last two decades, is remarkable. Were it to be football, it is China 2: West 1.

    Most likely, unless there is real war, that in ten years, China will catch up in many fields; catch up, and surpass the West. Side by side with Russia.

    It could have been excellent news for the entire world. China is sharing its achievements, even with the poorest of the poor countries in Africa, or with Laos in Asia.

    The only problem is, that the West feels that it has to rule. It is unrepentant, observing the world from a clearly fundamentalist view. It cannot help it: it is absolutely, religiously convinced that it has to give orders to every man and woman, in every corner of the globe.

    It is a tick, fanatical. Lately, anyone who travels to Europe or the United States will testify: what is taking place there is not good, even for the ordinary citizens. Western governments and corporations are now robbing even their own citizens. The standard of living is nose-diving.

    China, with just a fraction of the wealth, is building a much more egalitarian society, although you would never guess so, if you exclusively relied on Western statistics.

    *

    So, “trade war” slogans are an attempt to convince the local and global public that “China is unfair”, that it is “taking advantage” of the West. President Trump is “defending” the United States against the Chinese ‘Commies’. But the more he “defends them”, the poorer they get. Strange, isn’t it?

    While the Chinese people, Russian people, even Laotian people, are, ‘miraculously’, getting richer and richer. They are getting more and more optimistic.

    For decades, the West used to preach ‘free trade’, and competition. That is, when it was in charge, or let’s say, ‘the only kid on the block’.

    In the name of competition and free trade, dozens of governments got overthrown, and millions of people killed.

    And now?

    What is China suppose to do? Frankly, what?

    Should it curb its production, or perhaps close scientific labs? Should it consult the US President or perhaps British Prime Minister, before it makes any essential economic decision? Should it control the exchange rate of RMB, in accordance with the wishes of the economic tsars in Washington? That would be thoroughly ridiculous, considering that (socialist/Communist) China will soon become the biggest economy in the world, or maybe it already is.

    There is all that abstract talk, but nothing concrete suggested. Or is it like that on purpose?

    Could it be that the West does not want to improve relations with Beijing?

    On September 7, 2019, AP reported:

    White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow compared trade talks with China on Friday to the U.S. standoff with Russia during the Cold War…

    “The stakes are so high, we have to get it right, and if that takes a decade, so be it,” he said.

    Kudlow emphasized that it took the United States decades to get the results it wanted with Russia. He noted that he worked in the Reagan administration: “I remember President Reagan waging a similar fight against the Soviet Union.”

    Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other means).

    Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it.

    But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of the world.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 22:40

  • Biden Unveils Labor Plan In Attempt To Woo Middle Class Voters
    Biden Unveils Labor Plan In Attempt To Woo Middle Class Voters

    Former Vice President Joe Biden unveiled a series of ideas centered around unionization and worker protections in an attempt to woo middle class voters, according to Bloomberg.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Democratic presidential candidate on Friday released a series of pledges aimed at countering what his campaign calls “the abuse of corporate power over labor,” while also encouraging workers to organize. Some of the measures build on existing legislation or efforts by the Obama administration.

    Biden is presenting his labor plan days after he returned to his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, for a speech touting his middle-class roots and values, and assailing all the ways he sees Trump failing to deliver for working Americans. –Bloomberg

    The plan calls for “abolishing state right-to-work laws, no- poaching pacts among companies and almost all non-compete agreements — does not break much new ground in the Democratic race, and aligns him on many points with his more progressive rivals,” according to the report.

    “Unions built the middle class. And the middle class built this country,” Biden said on Tuesday in Scranton.

    Meanwhile, Biden has aligned himself with his top Democratic rivals in endorsing a standard set by a recent California law which makes it much harder for companies such as Uber and Lyft to classify their employees as independent contractors instead of employees.

    Biden would also hold corporate executives personally liable for interference with efforts to organize, with criminal charges possible for intentional interference.

    He said that he supports the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, introduced by Representative Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat, and others earlier this year. That measure would impose financial penalties on companies that interfere with unionization efforts.

    Biden said he would “aggressively” pursue employers who violate labor laws, participate in wage theft or intentionally misclassify employees as independent contractors. He added that he intends to push for legislation to make misclassification of workers a “substantive violation” of federal labor, employment and tax laws. He would also fund an increase in the number of investigators in various agencies, whose ranks have been cut by the Trump administration. –Bloomberg

    Biden’s plan would also make it easier for employees to collectively bargain whether they are in the public or private sector – and has vowed to create a cabinet-level working group tasked with formulating a plan for to encourage unions and address economic inequality by the end of his first 100 days in office.

    Perhaps the working group can figure out how employees won’t collectively bargain themselves out of a job due to outsourcing to countries with less stringent worker rights.

    Read more about Biden’s plan here.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 22:20

    Tags
    Social Issues
    Labor
    Politics

  • "We Want To Keep The Oil"
    "We Want To Keep The Oil"

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    “Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand,
    workin’ in the dark against your fellow man.
    But as sure as God made black and white
    what’s down in the dark will be brought to the light.”

    ~ Johnny Cash/traditional, ‘God’s Gonna Cut You Down’

    The Grayzone has an excellent new article out titled “US troops are staying in Syria to ‘keep the oil’ — and have already killed hundreds over it” detailing the many ways the Trump administration has openly admitted that it is keeping US troops in Syria to control the nation’s oil fields so that the Syrian government can’t use it to fund reconstruction efforts.

    “We’ve secured the oil, and therefore a small number of US troops will remain in the area where they have the oil,” Trump said in a recent press conference.

    “And we’re going to be protecting it. And we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future.”

    “We want to keep the oil,” Trump said in a cabinet meeting a few days earlier.

    “Maybe we’ll have one of our big oil companies to go in and do it properly.”

    “A purpose of those [US] forces, working with the SDF, is to deny access to those oil fields by ISIS and others who may benefit from revenues that could be earned,” said Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

    As Grayzone’s Ben Norton accurately explains, “and others” necessarily means the Syrian government; preventing Assad from accessing Syrian oil is standing US military policy.

    And that of course is the real reason US armed forces constantly remain in Syria despite all the empty babble about ending wars and bringing home the troops: it’s about control over a nation in a key geostrategic location which refuses to be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized empire. Controlling its material wealth is an ideal way to do this.

    Whenever I write about oil as a primary motive for US imperialism, I always get a bunch of right-wingers objecting that that makes no sense because the US has plenty of oil, and that it’s really about freedom and democracy or communism or Zionism or pedovore cults or Illuminati or whatever. What they miss, in their squirming attempts to avoid cognitive dissonance, is that it’s not about having and consuming oil, it’s about controlling oil. Control what governments can and cannot access crucial resources, and you can control which governments thrive and which ones don’t.

    As Trump said, “We’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future.” In no other international power dynamic would this be considered a rational thing for anyone to say. The idea of another nation invading Texas and seizing control of its oil fields and then Xi Jinping or whomever saying “We’re controlling their oil and we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future” is unthinkable, but a US president can just come right out and say this about a weaker nation and it won’t even be front-page news.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is the most honest US president of all time. By that I don’t mean that he’s an honest person; he of course lies constantly. I simply mean that while his predecessors have always made sure to dress their imperialist military campaigns up as benevolent humanitarian intercessions, Trump just stands there out in the open like “Yeah we grabbed their oil and it’s ours now, blow me.” There was once a time when claiming a war was really about oil got you branded a conspiracy theorist. Now the US president just outright says it.

    And this is really the only reason establishment power structures dislike Trump. They don’t feel directly threatened by him, they just dislike the way he’s always saying the quiet part out loud. Status quo power has a vested interest in keeping a smiling mask on things and preventing people from thinking too hard about what’s really going on in the world, and Trump keeps ripping off that mask by telling everyone what he’s doing in plain English.

    Revolution (the real kind, the kind that actually changes things) is ultimately a fight against psychological compartmentalization on a mass scale. Compartmentalization is a tool people use to avoid the psychological discomfort (aka cognitive dissonance) that would otherwise be experienced by trying to hold on to two conflicting positions at one time, like, for example, seeing yourself as a good person and simultaneously giving your government your tacit permission to murder strangers on the other side of the world in your name.

    Establishment power works to prevent people from looking directly at the ugly aspects of the empire, like the horrific nature of what war is and how much their country spreads it, or the fact that so many have so little while a few others have so very much, or the reason their government doesn’t seem to operate the way they were taught in school. The empire has a vested interest in keeping these things in the dark, while the clear-eyed rebel is always trying to drag them kicking and screaming into the light. This is why truth-tellers and whistleblowers are always made public enemy number one by our rulers.

    The true rebel fights to enlighten things, the empire fights to endarken them. This is the struggle from the largest power structures in our world, right down to our own inner lives as individual human beings. This is why I talk so much about the importance of inner work; it’s all one struggle, from the evil secrets hidden behind thick walls of government opacity all the way down to the parts of ourselves we try not to look at. Your efforts to become a more consciously integral and less compartmentalized human being are just as important as your efforts to expose the puppet strings to the audience.

    As November 2020 draws nearer the screams to shut up and stop pointing at the truth are going to get louder and louder for political dissidents in America, even louder than the “shut up and fall in line” admonishments that Bernie-or-Busters received constantly in 2016. This will only be the voice of the empire yelling “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” It will only be those who are still plugged into the imperial narrative matrix transforming into a bunch of Agent Smiths and telling you to stop saying things which cause them cognitive dissonance.

    But, for someone who has signed the truth-at-all-costs contract within themselves, this simply won’t be an option. Our desire to bring what’s dark into the light will overcome any pressure to keep things endarkened, whether it be in ourselves, in our relationships, in our society, in our government, or in our world. Followed through with in a deep and integral way, it changes the way we think, it changes the way we experience our own consciousness, it alters our behavior, it ruins our experience of news media and Hollywood blockbusters, it ends our marriages, it breaks up longstanding friendships and forges new ones, and it makes the deceptions of the powerful utterly intolerable. Truth come what may means truth come what may, and it’s a lifetime commitment.

    We wouldn’t have it any other way.

    *  *  *

    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 Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing 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

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 22:00

  • Amid Crises, China Sets 2020 Tone With Secret Plenum Meeting Next Week
    Amid Crises, China Sets 2020 Tone With Secret Plenum Meeting Next Week

    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is expected to hold a long-delayed meeting next week, according to several state media sources, as the country experiences a wide range of issues, such as social and economic chaos in Hong Kong, a trade war between the US, and the possibility of sub 6% GDP in mainland China in 2020. 

    Global Times reported Friday that the closed-door, secret meeting would be held from Oct. 28-31 in Beijing.

    Xinhua News Agency reports that President Xi Jinping will speak at the event on Thursday.

    Members of the CPC, the Communist Party’s elites, are expected to discuss several important topics, including “issues concerning how to uphold and improve the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and modernize China’s system and capacity for governance,” the Global Times said. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Plenum, what the meeting is technically called, is the convening of the CCP’s Central Committee to discuss policy and country direction. 

    Last year’s plenum was delayed, so next week’s meeting will be important as communist elites discuss policy and country heading to navigate the trade war with the US and address policy that will further create a soft landing for the economy. 

    “The fourth plenum will implement reform plans, and they will talk about how to improve governance, which is pressing,” one Chinese policy insider told Reuters on condition of anonymity. 

    “They need to transform the overall state governance capacity and adapt to changes in global rules and withstand stress tests from external risks,” the insider said, adding that the trade war is exacerbating such pressures.

    Wang Jiangsu, director of the Asian Law Institute at the National University of Singapore, told Reuters that President Xi would likely say that the Chinese political system is superior to the Western world. 

    Analysts at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said a trade war with the US and decelerating economy had left President Xi with an internal power struggle. 

    Sinocism blog’s Bill Bishop wrote on Monday that some CPC members would be pushing for immediate trade war solutions as the economy slows. Some are expected to push for the removal of all tariffs to improve the business environment. 

    So far, China shows no slowdown in the restructuring of its domestic economy. When it comes to the trade war, Washington and Beijing have made recent efforts to talk and allow China to obtain new US agriculture purchases, but it seems a complete trade deal is far away. 

    The trade war is really about a power struggle between China and the US, and mainly, who will control the world after 2025. So China has been laying out roadmaps with meetings of how it will be the next global superpower, something that has infuriated Washington. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 21:40

    Tags
    Politics

  • Sex Offenders Sue Police After "No Trick-Or-Treat" Signs Placed On Their Lawns
    Sex Offenders Sue Police After "No Trick-Or-Treat" Signs Placed On Their Lawns

    Authored by Elias Marat via TheMindUnleashed.com,

    A group of sex offenders in the U.S. state of Georgia are suing a sheriff’s department after local authorities placed “No Trick-Or-Treat At This Address!!” signs on the front lawns of their homes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While Butts County Sheriff Gary Long claims that the move is meant to keep children safe on Halloween, the pedophiles claim that the move was unjust and violates their rights to privacy and free speech.

    On September 24, attorney Mark Yurachek filed a complaint on behalf of plaintiffs Christopher Reed, Reginald Holden, and Corey McClendon, all of whom served prison time for sexual offenses against children. The court filing accuses the sheriff’s office of putting up warning signs on the front lawns of over 200 registered sex offenders in the county last October.

    Attorney Yurachek told Fox 5 Atlanta:

    “I’m just not sure that this kind of action makes your kids any safer.

    It just makes your constitutional rights less safe.”

    According to the lawsuit, the signs resulted in “anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation” for the offenders while, in effect, forcing them to endorse speech in the form of a warning they disagreed with—similar to a political or religious organization trespassing on someone’s property to post objectionable material without the consent of the property owner.

    “The trespass stuff is pretty clear. They’re coming onto their property and putting the signs on there.”

    Georgia’s sex offender registry statute also doesn’t require that warning signs be placed at the homes of offenders, as is the case in other states, Yurachek said. He added:

    “They are individuals who have been brave enough to not be afraid to let the public know that they are registered sex offenders, but are also not willing to tolerate this unlawful action by the sheriff.”

    The attorney also said that in addition to the offenders having paid their debts to society for their crimes, they are also not on probation and have complied with all legal requirements.

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

    More importantly, the lawyer warned that the sheriff’s actions could be a slippery slope that may lead to the violation of non-offenders’ rights in the future. Yurachek told 11Alive:

    “It’s easy to pick on these guys, because nobody really wants to see anything done for a sex offender.

    But I promise you if this goes by without a legal challenge and push-back, it’s going to get worse… The Sheriff’s going to say the next time, when it’s the DUI registry, and he wants to identify people who drink and drive, that that’s okay, as well.” 

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on Thursday that a judge would decide whether or not the cops would be allowed to put the signs up again this year. However, Sheriff Long insists that the signs will stay up no matter what the court says.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a Facebook post on Monday that has since been deleted—along with the entire page of the Butts County Sheriff’s Office, seemingly—Long defended the practice, saying:

    “This Thursday, we will argue to the Federal Court that we are protecting our children and following Georgia Law by placing these signs.

    Regardless of the Judge’s ruling this Thursday, I WILL do everything within the letter of the Law to protect the children of this Community.

    … I ask for your prayers this Thursday into the matter.”

    Yurachek, however, feels that this is about much more than protecting children—and instead is about the constitutional restraints in place preventing police from abusing their powers, even in creative ways that appear to serve the public good. The lawyer said:

    “I understand that there are a lot of people who think this is a great idea, who think ‘Yeah this protects my kids, but what they should be thinking about is ‘Does this protect my rights?’” 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 21:20

    Tags
    Law Crime

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 25

Today’s News 25th October 2019

  • Hong Kong Protesters Show Support For Catalan Separatists
    Hong Kong Protesters Show Support For Catalan Separatists

    Hundreds of protesters in Hong Kong showed their support for Catalonian separatists on Thursday, waving Catalan flags and banners urging “a fight for freedom together.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A pro-democracy demonstrator holds an Estelada (Catalan separatist flag) and a phone with a flashlight during a protest in Hong Kong’s Chater Garden showing their solidarity with the Catalonian independence movement in Spain, in Hong Kong, China, October 24, 2019. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

    Thursday’s rally was held in a downtown garden according to Reuters, one of the few to have obtained a permit from authorities in recent weeks. While organizers said that 3,000 people showed up, the police put the figure at 550.

    After Hong Kong was handed over by Britain to Chinese rule, they were allowed to retain several freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland under a “one country, two systems” formula – which includes the right to protest as well as a non-communist judicial system.

    “The context (of Catalonia and Hong Kong) is different,” said Barcelona tourist Richard Bosom, telling Reuters “Both are different stories, but in general terms… it is about an oppressive and tyrannical state against a group of people that are trying to do something different and they are not listened to..“

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In Hong Kong’s demonstrations, millions have taken to the streets in sometimes violent clashes over what they see as China’s tightening grip. Most protesters in the former British colony want greater democracy, among other demands, although a small minority is calling for independence.

    In that sense, they share some common ground with separatist demonstrators in Spain’s wealthy northeast region of Catalonia, which was rocked by protests after nine separatist leaders were sentenced this month to long prison terms for a failed independence bid in 2017. –Reuters

    The majority of political parties in Spain have rejected an independence referendum for Catalonia, however separatist parties are not banned from the region which enjoys autonomy similar to that of Hong Kong’s relationship with China.

    Meanwhile in Barcelona, a small demonstration was held on Thursday outside the Chinese Consulate-General according to La Vanguardia.

    Over seven million people live in Catalonia, which sports its own language and a separate flag. Protests erupted after the separatist leaders were sentenced on October 14 over the 2017 bid for independence.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 02:45

    Tags
    Politics

  • South Africa's Race-Based Socialism
    South Africa’s Race-Based Socialism

    Authored by Russell Lamberti via The Mises Institute,

    Twenty-five years since the election of Nelson Mandela as president of South Africa, the country remains home to some of the most market-invasive, race-based economic policies in the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At the heart of this system are provisions for Affirmative Action (AA) and unique statutory measures for Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). These laws are suffocating the South African economy.

    AA and BEE developed in the context of post-apartheid South Africa. Affirmative Action is mandated by the Employment Equity Act of 1998, which mandates companies to alter their workforces until they reflect the racial composition of the local economically active population.

    BEE was introduced formally in 2003 as the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (BBBEE Act). It goes much further than AA, requiring companies in South Africa to structure their corporate ownership, boards, management, staff, procurement, and charity based on racial classification.

    The “whiter” a company’s shareholders, board, management, employees and suppliers, the lower its BEE score (yes, there is an actual scorecard). The “blacker” a company, the higher its BEE score. In the mining industry, the BEE Charter (an industry regulation in terms of the B-BBEE Act) requires a 30% BEE shareholding in companies applying for a new mining right.

    South Africans are still racially classified for BEE and AA purposes. The most favoured group is those classified as “black/African,” regarded as the most disadvantaged during Apartheid, the unjust system of racially-applied laws that the government began dismantling nearly 30 years ago. The next most favoured groups are “coloureds” (a group descending from Europeans, indigenous Africans, and Indo-Malayans) and “indians” (descendants of Indian settlers). These groups are deemed to have been disadvantaged by Apartheid, but not as much as blacks were. The least favoured group for AA and BEE purposes is “whites,” both Afrikaans- and English-speaking, who descend mainly from European settlers (or are recent European settlers themselves) who arrived in the region predominantly from the mid-17 th Century until the latter half of the 20th Century.

    The Pervasiveness of BEE

    BEE is designed to influence almost all businesses in South Africa and compels compliance with its race-based criteria. State taxation and repurposed spending accounts directly for about one-third of all sales turnover in the South African economy, so BEE exerts a tremendous direct influence over the business sector. Companies with no or low BEE scores move to the back of the queue for state contracts.

    But the influence of BEE goes much further. BEE scores depend on the BEE scores of a firm’s suppliers too. Large firms, especially those in the running for state contracts, routinely require their smaller suppliers to improve their BEE scores, which in turn need their even smaller suppliers to do the same, and so on. The result is a permeation of a high degree of BEE compliance across the entire economy, monitored and administered by an army of HR administration staff.

    The statutory BEE requirements for state contracts are supplemented by a moral and ethical culture of “Transformation” in which it is deemed a just imperative to maintain and indeed deepen race-based legislation. This “transformationism” is promoted in all spheres of the state, in the courts, the major universities, and cheered on by large publicly listed firms.

    One might expect that as time passes, such legislation would be deemed less necessary and be phased out. In practice, since its statutory inception in 2003, BEE Codes have been made more prescriptive, compelling firms to transact according to ever more racial criteria to maintain their BEE score. The codes have shifted to favour ‘blacker’ firms even more. Some companies’ BEE scores have diminished because the owners are coloured people. When revised codes stipulated lower scores for owners who are not “fully” black, their scores fell, causing them to lose contracts!

    BEE has increasingly been jumping the fence into the sphere of anti-trust. After a recent legislative amendment, South Africa’s Competition Commission, the extra-judicial body tasked with policing anti-trust, will now take race even more into account when assessing market dominance, mergers and acquisitions, pricing and so on. Companies with higher BEE scores are likely to be judged more leniently by anti-trust mandarins.

    A Pernicious Form of Socialism

    BEE is a system that erects new incentives and costs for certain economic transactions. It is intended to achieve a different allocation of labour and resources compared to what would arise in a purely free market, with more emphasis on peoples’ classified race and their political connections and less on the value of their product or service.

    Ludwig von Mises argued that,

    man acts, which is tantamount to the proposition: Man is eager to substitute a state of affairs that suits him better for a state of affairs that suits him less. In order to achieve this, he must employ suitable means.

    Choosing particular ends and means with limited time requires forgoing alternative ends and means. These tradeoffs imply an order of preferences revealed in action. A chosen action always incurs a cost.

    BEE uses the power of the state to divert action toward the pursuit of subjectively less valued ends with more costly means than otherwise would have been undertaken. Factors of production are therefore rendered less productive, reducing value (real wealth).

    Fewer goods produced and available for consumption means a higher cost of living and diminishes living standards compared to what they otherwise would have been.

    While BEE lessens overall wealth, BEE beneficiaries can accrue more personal wealth. These privileges incentivise more demand for BEE policies from favoured groups, who in turn reward politicians with votes and patronage.

    As BEE policy intensifies, it destroys more wealth. With less wealth created, the amount that the state can extract through taxation from the productive sector diminishes. This loss incentivises the state to raise tax rates even higher, borrow more (raising future taxes), and print more money (taxing wealth via currency debasement) to keep resources flowing into state coffers.

    In South Africa, racial state policy in the post-apartheid era has led to a vicious cycle of policy begetting wealth-destruction, leading to political dissatisfaction, generating demands by politically connected groups for more draconian racial policy, and so on.

    By reducing overall returns on capital while raising regime uncertainty, BEE increases investment risk and lowers levels of investment.1 Since productivity is a function of the depth and breadth of the capital structure, lower levels of quality capital investment (higher levels of consumption) under a BEE regime lead to further reductions in productivity.

    Weak Economic Growth

    Essentially, BEE results in capital misallocation and capital consumption and redistributes wealth from voluntarily-determined to politically-determined wealth-possessors. This process reduces the productive capacity of the economy and slows the rate of creation of valued goods and services.

    South Africa has been one of the globe’s growth underperformers since it implemented BEE policies in 2004. In the chart below, we compare nominal GDP per capita denominated in dollars (based to 100 in 2005) across various emerging market and commodity-producing countries. South Africa’s GDP per capita grew by 15% in nominal dollar terms since 2005, while the mean of the sample (excluding South Africa) increased by 115% (i.e. more than doubled).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Many factors contribute to the rate of aggregate economic output in a country. South Africa’s glaring underperformance (along with Mexico) compared to similar peer countries implies that it has other restrictions on growth that pertain to the efficiency of markets and the misallocation and misappropriation of resources through political means. BEE’s far reach into the economy, and its scope for resource waste and political corruption make it a prime candidate for explaining a significant portion of South Africa’s weak economic performance.

    Conclusion

    BEE in South Africa is a form of racial socialism. It forces productive members from all cultural communities to subsidise connected political opportunists. BEE, therefore, leads to a greater emphasis on getting ahead using coercive means and a lower emphasis on getting ahead with voluntary actions. Instead of spending limited time focused on serving the needs of others using resources efficiently, much time and effort is spent securing political favour, jostling for political positions, deemphasising the needs of customers relative to those of compliance officers, and having a lower regard for economising resources and the formation of productive capital.2

    The net effect is wealth destruction and perpetuation of chronic, widespread poverty. South Africa’s per capita GDP, at around $6,000 in 2019, has not increased in inflation-adjusted terms in a quarter-century and is down about 10% since the introduction of BEE. Meanwhile, the mean increase in real per capita dollar GDP in our sample since 2004 has been around 70%3. If South Africa had grown in line with the sample mean since 2004, per capita GDP would be nearly double what it is today.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    BEE in South Africa is racial economic policy in hyperdrive. It should be a warning to other countries that trying to address historical grievances through racialised socialistic means is a recipe for failure.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/25/2019 – 02:00

  • Is The US Playing A 4-D Chess Game In The Middle East That No One Understands?
    Is The US Playing A 4-D Chess Game In The Middle East That No One Understands?

    Authored by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheMindUnleashed.com,

    Trump is rapidly ramping up troop deployments in preparation for what could be one of the greatest wars of our generation…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria has been somewhat of a nightmare for the Trump administration. Either that, or the story in and of itself has served as a useful distraction from other issues.

    At first, the media hit Donald Trump hard for potentially allowing a genocide of the Kurdish allies it had previously backed to defeat ISIS in parts of Syria. Anyone who knows anything about history will know that this isn’t the first time the U.S. has been accused of abandoning its Kurdish allies.

    Largely missing from any serious commentary on the issue is the fact that U.S. troops had illegally invaded Syria to begin with, eventually taking over close to one third of Syria’s territory.

    Also missing is the fact that U.S. troops stationed in Syria were effectively a barrier between the Assad government and the Kurdish population, preventing any sort of meaningful peace being reached between the two. Turkey’s incursion, it seems, is made up of Sunni radicals who are still hellbent on unseating Assad.

    Not too long ago, the U.S. announced a portion of troops will remain in Syria to protect the oil fields. While some commentators have made it clear that unless the United States wants to become a globally renowned pirate outfit, it would not be able to exploit these resources as the oil belongs to the Assad government.

    However, that didn’t stop the U.S. from occupying these areas with the view of giving control of these resources to the Kurdish elements it had backed to defeat ISIS. People who think that the U.S. invades countries to take their oil are therefore somewhat naïve, as this cannot be the case. The U.S. war machine is not concerned with owning and using natural resources (the U.S. is pumping out oil in record numbers), it is actually concerned with controlling these resources.

    The U.S. is now saying that the troops withdrawing from Syria will be stationed in Iraq. Iraq has responded by saying that the U.S. doesn’t have permission to send its troops to its territory. However, the fact that they were even in Syria to begin with seems to suggest that permission is a non-issue for the U.S. military.

    It’s not clear whether this is a major policy blunder for the United States under Trump’s leadership or another amazing example of Trump’s brilliantly played 4D chess game (ha!) in which we are too immature to comprehend.

    In the meantime, Trump is rapidly ramping up troop deployments in other parts of the world in preparation for what could be one of the greatest wars of our generation, so it would also pay to keep an eye on wartime developments that generally slip past the mainstream media’s radar.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 23:55

    Tags
    Politics
    War Conflict

  • Chicago Ranked Most Rat-Infested City In America For Fifth Consecutive Time
    Chicago Ranked Most Rat-Infested City In America For Fifth Consecutive Time

    Chicago is ‘officially’ the “Rattiest City” in the U.S., according to pest control service Orkin.

    For the fifth consecutive time, the pest control services provider places the Windy City at the top of its most rat-infested cities, with New York and Los Angeles taking second and third place, and San Francisco-Oakland, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia rounding out the top five Rattiest Cities.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The metro regions were ranked by the number of new rodent treatments performed from September 2018-2019.

    “Beyond structural damage, there are multiple health issues associated with rodents including food poisoning, rat-bite fever, hantavirus and even the bubonic plague. Rodents can easily spread diseases in a home or commercial site in a short period of time,” Chelle Hartzer, an Orkin entomologist added.

    Orkin isn’t the first to notice the city’s rodent problem, either. Last year, Chicago was dubbed the “rat capital of the U.S.” by apartment search service RentHop. It reportedly received more rat complaints than any other city last year – nearly 51,000 total. According to RentHop’s analysis, New York City came in second place, followed by Washington, D.C. and Boston.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 23:35

  • Escobar: Vladimir Putin, Syria's Pacifier-In-Chief
    Escobar: Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Pacifier-In-Chief

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    Russia-Turkey deal establishes ‘safe zone’ along Turkish border and there will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan shake hands during a joint press conference after their talks in the Black Sea resort of Sochi on October 22, 2019. Photo: Sergei Chirikov / poll / AFP

    The negotiations in Sochi were long – over six hours – tense and tough. Two leaders in a room with their interpreters and several senior Turkish ministers close by if advice was needed. The stakes were immense: a road map to pacify northeast Syria, finally.

    The press conference afterwards was somewhat awkward – riffing on generalities. But there’s no question that in the end Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan managed the near impossible.

    The Russia-Turkey deal establishes a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border – something Erdogan had been gunning for since 2014. There will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols. The Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units), part of the rebranded, US-aligned Syrian Democratic Forces, will need to retreat and even disband, especially in the stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and they will have to abandon their much-cherished urban areas such as Kobane and Manbij.  The Syrian Arab Army will be back in the whole northeast. And Syrian territorial integrity – a Putin imperative – will be preserved.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is a Syria-Russia-Turkey win-win-win – and, inevitably, the end of a separatist-controlled Syrian Kurdistan. Significantly, Erdogan’s spokesman Fahrettin Altun stressed Syria’s “territorial integrity” and “political unity.” That kind of rhetoric from Ankara was unheard of until quite recently.

    Putin immediately called Syrian President Bashar al Assad to detail the key points of the memorandum of understanding. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov once again stressed Putin’s main goal – Syrian territorial integrity – and the very hard work ahead to form a Syrian Constitutional Committee for the legal path towards a still-elusive political settlement.

    Russian military police and Syrian border guards are already arriving to monitor the imperative YPG withdrawal – all the way to a depth of 30 kilometers from the Turkish border. The joint military patrols are tentatively scheduled to start next Tuesday.

    On the same day this was happening in Sochi, Assad was visiting the frontline in Idlib – a de facto war zone that the Syrian army, allied with Russian air power, will eventually clear of jihadi militias, many supported by Turkey until literally yesterday. That graphically illustrates how Damascus, slowly but surely, is recovering sovereign territory after eight and a half years of war.

    Who gets the oil?

    For all the cliffhangers in Sochi, there was not a peep about an absolutely key element: who’s in control of Syria’s oilfields, especially after President Trump’s now-notorious tweet stating, “the US has secured the oil.” No one knows which oil. If he meant Syrian oil, that would be against international law. Not to mention Washington has no mandate – from the UN or anyone else – to occupy Syrian territory.

    The Arab street is inundated with videos of the not exactly glorious exit by US troops, leaving Syria pelted by rocks and rotten tomatoes all the way to Iraqi Kurdistan, where they were greeted by a stark reminder. “All US forces that withdrew from Syria received approval to enter the Kurdistan region [only] so that they may be transported outside Iraq. There is no permission granted for these forces to stay inside Iraq,” the Iraqi military headquarters in Baghdad said.

    The Pentagon said a “residual force” may remain in the Middle Euphrates river valley, side by side with Syrian Democratic Forces militias, near a few oilfields, to make sure the oil does not fall “into the hands of ISIS/Daesh or others.” “Others” actually means the legitimate owner, Damascus. There’s no way the Syrian army will accept that, as it’s now fully engaged in a national drive to recover the country’s sources of food, agriculture and energy. Syria’s northern provinces have a wealth of water, hydropower dams, oil, gas and food.

    As it stands, the US retreat is partial at best, also considering that a small garrison remains behind at al-Tanf, on the border with Jordan. Strategically, that does not make sense, because the al-Qaem border between Iran and Iraq is now open and thriving.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Map: Energy Consulting Group

    The map above shows the position of US bases in early October, but that’s changing fast. The Syrian Army is already working to recover oilfields around Raqqa, but the strategic US base of Ash Shaddadi still seems to be in place. Until quite recently US troops were in control of Syria’s largest oilfield, al-Omar, in the northeast.

    There have been accusations by Russian sources that mercenaries recruited by private US military companies trained jihadi militias such as the Maghawir al-Thawra (“Army of Free Tribes”) to sabotage Syrian oil and gas infrastructure and/or sell Syrian oil and gas to bribe tribal leaders and finance jihadi operations. The Pentagon denies it.

    Gas pipeline

    As I have argued for years, Syria to a large extent has been a key ‘Pipelineistan’ war – not only in terms of pipelines inside Syria, and the US preventing Damascus from commercializing its own natural resources, but most of all around the fate of the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline which was agreed in a memorandum of understanding signed in 2012.

    This pipeline has, over the years, always been a red line, not only for Washington but also for Doha, Riyadh and Ankara.

    The situation should dramatically change when the $200 billion-worth of reconstruction in Syria finally takes off after a comprehensive peace deal is in place. It will be fascinating to watch the European Union – after NATO plotted for an “Assad must go” regime change operation for years – wooing Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus with financial offers for their gas.

    NATO explicitly supported the Turkish offensive “Operation Peace Spring.” And we haven’t even seen the ultimate geoeconomic irony yet: NATO member, Turkey, purged of its neo-Ottoman dreams, merrily embracing the Gazprom-supported Iran-Iraq-Syria ‘Pipelineistan’ road map.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 23:15

    Tags
    Politics
    War Conflict

  • 'Millennial Millionaires' Banking On $68 Trillion "Great Wealth Transfer" From Parents 
    ‘Millennial Millionaires’ Banking On $68 Trillion “Great Wealth Transfer” From Parents 

    A new report published by Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC and Coldwell Banker Global Luxury details how “The Great Wealth Transfer” of the 2020s has already begun, which is a period when baby boomer wealth is transferred to their millennial offspring.

    The report titled “A Look at Wealth 2019: Millennial Millionaires,” notes how the already 618,000 millennial millionaires are expected to increase in size by 2030. 

    About 93% of them (575,000) are already worth between $1 million and $2.5 million. In the next several decades, nearly $68 trillion of wealth is expected to flow from boomers to millennials.

    “The difference between the millionaires of the early 1980s and the ones being created today is that many of them stand to inherit even more wealth from their baby boomer parents, who are considered the wealthiest generation in history,” Coldwell Banker researchers said. 

    While boomers are very wealthy, it should be noted that the reason behind their vast riches is due partly because of the Federal Reserve’s grand experiment of loosening monetary policy over the last four decades. Lowering interest rates and expanding quantitative easing (more recently), has generated the most significant bond, stock, and real estate bubbles the world has ever seen, these are huge sources of wealth generation for boomers. 

    Modern economic expansions are driven by boom and bust cycles. The next bust in bonds, stocks, and real estate will create secular deflation that will readjust valuations. This means that Coldwell Banker’s $68 trillion figure could be halved, or maybe to be fair, cut by at least a third in the next economic crisis. If that is the case, this would undoubtedly depress the total amount of potential millennial millionaires in the years ahead.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s problematic for boomers is that interest rates heading into 2020 are already low, and monetary policy is becoming less effective than ever before to generate growth in the real economy as recession threats rise. 

    On top of that, deglobalization, macroeconomic headwinds, a synchronized global slowdown, interest rates near zero lower bounds if not at or below zero in some countries, and soaring populism, has led many boomers and millennials to ignore how markets are at inflection points that could lead to a new era of depressed expected returns.  

    And what happens during the bust cycle when valuations get readjusted? Corporate deleveraging and the end of financial engineering will finally be seen — another shot in the heart to millennials expecting to inherit a sizeable bluechip portfolio from their parents. 

    So millennials, who are expecting a great deal of wealth coming their way via a transfer of financial assets from their parents in the next decade, should understand valuations are at extreme levels, and prices could see a mean reversion before these financial assets are transferred to them.  


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 22:55

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • Dems Scream "Racism" Over Political Ad Depicting SF Mayor As An Elitist
    Dems Scream “Racism” Over Political Ad Depicting SF Mayor As An Elitist

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Democrats are crying “racism” over a political poster depicting the mayor of San Francisco as a wealthy elitist.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    London Breed, San Francisco’s mayor, was shown in a poster with her feet up on a table, counting dollar bills, and smoking marijuana.

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

    According to a report by RT, the cartoon, which was made in a cartoonish style, shows the mayor in a red dress sitting with her high heels kicked up on a desk. The woman clutches a stack of greenbacks in her left hand and a joint in the right and appears to be dreaming. A long queue of people with price tags hanging around their necks is drawn in a thought bubble coming from the woman’s head. In the left corner of the poster, a man with a pack of dollar bills is carrying away a toddler. “Stop slavery and human trafficking in SF. Vote Nov.5, 2019 Ellen Zhou for Mayor,” the slogan reads.

    While controversial, the ad is not racist. Like all advertising, this ad is meant to upheave some emotions and those surrounding human trafficking certainly do that.  But instead of proving Breed is not in the human trafficking business, they instead immediately scream racism in an attempt to have the poster removed.

    But a few rational people have had it with the Democrats avoiding responsibility for destroying entire cities in California, and they made sure to Tweet about it!

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

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

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

    Faced with the mild backlash, Zhou refused to back down. She insisted as others have, that there was nothing racist about the poster. Firing back at her critics, the politician said that whoever tries to play a racial card had been “brainwashed.” 

    Zhou added that the poster was merely a satirical take on Breed’s policies. “The mayor makes $350,000 a year while people are dying on the streets — they have to pick their dead bodies up. A mayor getting a big fat raise while people are dying,” she said.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 22:35

    Tags
    Social Issues
    Politics

  • NYC Housing Bubble Implodes: Tribeca Home Prices Plunge 28% As New Taxes Bite
    NYC Housing Bubble Implodes: Tribeca Home Prices Plunge 28% As New Taxes Bite

    When NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio pushed through the controversial “mansion tax” hike on expensive NYC properties (what properties in the city aren’t?), real-estate experts warned that it would hurt he housing market. But their pleas that it could cause the unceremonious end of one of the frothiest property bubbles since the crisis fell on deaf ears.

    De Blasio’s decision raised the mansion tax rate – officially known as the ‘transfer tax’ rate – from a 1% flat rate to a tiered system. The  higher mansion tax rates mean higher closing costs for buyers: For example, the transfer tax due on a $5 million property used to be $50,000. Now, it’s more than double that at $112,500.

    It’s easy to brush this off as more rich people crying over unsubstantial sums, in reality, many of the people who are buying homes in the $2 million to $3 million range in NYC are (by the city’s standards) middle class. They don’t always have an extra $50,000 just sitting around. That, and this tax arrived not long after President Trump and the Congressional Republicans decided to punish their blue-state opponents by capping SALT deductions in their 2017 tax plan.

    And now, Bloomberg warns that prices in some of the city’s trendiest neighborhoods are in free fall.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In Tribeca, prices for used homes plunged 28% YoY, the largest drop of any neighborhood in the city. The latest median sales price  on record was $2.25 million in Q3, according to property listings website StreetEasy. Values in both Greenwich Village and Chelsea also dropped by 15%. Meanwhile, the Upper West Side and the area that includes Soho were each down 14%.

    For a more in-depth look at how the NYC housing market has changed, check out this Bloomberg piece, which features an interactive map allowing users to compare different neighborhoods. A quick scan of the data for TriBeCa, one of the city’s most established neighborhoods, compared with Astoria, Queens’s most up-and-coming-neighborhood, reveals a stunning divide.

    While prices climbed for Astoria homes in Q3, prices fell for homes in TriBeCa. And while sales slowed in TriBeCa (only slightly), they effectively ground to a halt on TriBeCa.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While the NYC housing market is collapsing, and certain other tony areas like Greenwich, CT and municipalities out east in the Hamptons, are also struggling, Goldman analysts pointed out that sales prices in other nearby counties are holding up OK.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, as we’ve mentioned before, the share of listings in Manhattan (presumably including new condos and existing homes) that are seeing their current for-sale listing price on Zillow being lowered is expanding at an increasingly rapid rate.                        

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Just as the inventory of homes being listed for sale is also climbing.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand what happens when listings – i.e. supply – expand while demand, both domestic and foreign (thanks again, Mr. President) – drops off.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 22:15

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • The Uighurs, China, & The Lucrative Hypocrisy Of LeBron James And The NBA
    The Uighurs, China, & The Lucrative Hypocrisy Of LeBron James And The NBA

    Authored by James Durso, op-ed via The Hill,

    Last week the National Basketball Association was brought to heel by China over a tweet by Daryl Morey, the general manager of the Houston Rockets, supporting democracy protestors in Hong Kong. Chinese retribution was quick as all 11 of the NBA’s official Chinese partners suspended ties, and appearances and endorsement deals were cancelled — just as the Los Angeles Lakers and Brooklyn Nets arrived in Shanghai for two exhibition games.

    Americans were feted to the sight of Houston’s James Harden and LeBron James of Los Angeles reciting their lines like kidnapping victims in a ransom video.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Harden’s “We apologize. You know, we love China” was forgettable enough, and Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr helpfully informed us “The world is a complex place and there’s more gray than black-and-white” when asked about the NBA kowtowing to the Chinese government. But @KingJames wrote his epitaph with, “So just be careful what we tweet and what we say and what we do. Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech, it can be a lot of negative that comes with it” — which is probably what the Chinese government tells the Chinese people.

    If LeBron James were some Vice President of GM, no one would care what he said or did, but he’s a woke celebrity and an activist for labor rights and social justice who forgot when you attack others for their failings, real or imagined, you raise the bar for yourself.

    The Hong Kong protestors — the real activists — registered their disappointment, some by burning #23 jerseys and commenting “LeBron James stands for money. Period.”

    Wesley Snipes said, “Always bet on black” but the NBA proves the most powerful color is green.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    How much green? 

    According to NBC News, last year 800 million Chinese watched an NBA game, “the league is estimated to be worth about $5 billion in China… and the NBA just signed a new partnership agreement with an internet company in the country for $1.5 billion.” China is 10 percent of the league’s revenue — and that could climb to 20 percent by 2030.

    Mr. James gets by on $35 million from the LA Lakers, and $32 million from Nike (part of an alleged $1 billion lifetime deal), but the post-NBA money will come from his SpringHill Entertainment which is collaborating with Warner Brothers on “Space Jam 2” that James will produce and star in. The movie will make a lot of money in China — if Beijing’s censors allow it in — which is probably what occupied his mind on that long flight back from China.

    And Nike’s shoe sales in China doubled in the last five years, and the company has 110 factories and over 145,000 workers in China. After all, those $110 #23 jerseys don’t stitch themselves.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In fact, who does stitch them?

    Nike doesn’t say. But according to the Citizen Power Institute (CPI), much of China’s apparel production is done by up to 1 million of China’s Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic groups detained in so-called re-education camps or vocational training centers, intended to cleanse them of their ethnic and religious  identity and make them loyal to the Communist Party of China.

    The camps and centers are in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which produces 84 percent of China’s cotton crop (Nike says the #23 jerseys are 100 percent recycled polyester), and most are run by the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), a paramilitary organization that reports directly to the Communist Party of China and is tasked to help maintain political stability in Xinjiang. One of the ways it is doing so is by detention of large numbers of Uighurs in “re-education camps” which complements the Chinese government’s goal of vertical integration of the  garment manufacturing sector.

    The XPCC operates through a network of joint-ventures and front companies that produce the finished goods. One of the XPCC’s joint-venture partners is Hong Kong-based Esquel Group, which produces clothing for Nike.

    XPCC hasn’t just assembled an efficient garment production operation. According to CPI, XPCC’s “inmates serve as a key labor force in every link of China’s cotton value chain, from cotton field reclamation to planting, harvesting, processing, and garment production.”

    If the NBA would crack a history book, it might learn that “cotton field reclamation to planting, harvesting” was the cause of the “War Between the States.”

    Do the NBA and its players understand this? You bet.

    Just understand all that “Injustice Anywhere Is A Threat To Justice Everywhere” for what it is — marketing — and that the league confines its posturing and tweeting only where there are no financial consequences.

    And there probably won’t be any financial penalties for the NBA, Nike, or LeBron and the other players, according to marketing experts who say “this will pass.”

    But one thing it has done is take the sharp edges off the ability of the league and the players to gratuitously comment on political and social issues du jour, knowing the rejoinder may be “why aren’t you speaking out about Uighur slaves in cotton fields?”

    LeBron James always wanted to be “More Than an Athlete” but is this what he had in mind?


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 21:55

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 24

Today’s News 24th October 2019

  • Russia Sends Nuclear Bombers To Africa As Putin Hosts First-Ever Economic Summit
    Russia Sends Nuclear Bombers To Africa As Putin Hosts First-Ever Economic Summit

    Russia views Africa as a continent that will achieve supergrowth through 2050. The continent’s population is expected to double alongside energy consumption.

    Moscow is making its move to strengthen relations with countries in the region; if that is through oil deals, increased nuclear cooperation, or defense contracts, the shift to Africa is being made today. 

    What better way to show Washington that Africa is shifting to Russia than land two nuclear-capable bombers in South Africa.

    The bombers touched down in South Africa on Wednesday, during the first-ever Russia-Africa summit in the southern Russian city of Sochi. President Vladimir Putin asked African leaders to double trade with Russia through 2025, Reuters reported. 

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

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

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

    South African Air Force officials reported that two Tupolev Tu-160 bombers landed at Waterkloof Air Base on Wednesday. At the same time, Russia’s Ministry of Defence released several statements indicating the mission of the planes is to foster increased military cooperation with South Africa. 

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

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

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

    Earlier this week, we featured an article from Vanend Maliksetian via OilPrice.com, that outlined Russia’s recent move into Africa and the upcoming importance of this week’s meeting.

    “Virtually all great powers have set their eyes on Africa as the continent’s global importance grows. Its population is set to double by 2050 and its economy is expected to expand significantly alongside its energy consumption. It is these projections that have driven Russia to invest heavily in strong relations in the region for when the continent’s explosive growth takes off. The Kremlin’s goal is to emulate China’s success in fostering economic, diplomatic, and military links with Africa. To become an important partner, Moscow is organizing the first-ever Russia-Africa summit on 23-24 October.”

    President Putin’s expansion into Africa is to restore the Russian empire to its pre-Soviet collapse size. To do this, Russia must expand into Africa, and increase its imports of natural resources with the continent, increase arms exports with various countries, develop and share nuclear technology, and project power to Washington that Africa is pivoting to Moscow. 

    “During the Cold War, Moscow maintained strong relations with countries embroiled in anti-colonial conflicts such as Angola, Mozambique, and Algeria. Russia’s strategy in regaining its position vis-á-vis Africa partly revolves in reinvigorating these existing relations,” Maliksetian wrote. 

    Reuters noted that Tupolev Tu-160 bombers landing at Waterkloof is an example of strong diplomatic ties between the countries.

    “Our relations are not solely built on ‘struggle politics’, but rather on fostering mutually beneficial partnerships based on common interests,” Russia said.

    Maliksetian noted Russia is positioning itself in Africa as an “alternative to Chinese money and Western meddling.” 

    President Putin on Monday told TASS News that Western powers have been intimidating African countries to exploit their natural resources. 

    “We see how an array of Western countries are resorting to pressure, intimidation, and blackmail of sovereign African governments,” he said.

    The global status quo is shifting, Western dominance of the world is deteriorating, the American empire stands to lose big if Russia and or China wins control of Africa. 

     

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 02:45

    Tags
    Politics

  • Europe's Spending Binge Is Slowing Its Economy
    Europe’s Spending Binge Is Slowing Its Economy

    Authored by Daniel Lacalle via The Mises Institute,

    The idea that governments can’t lower taxes because there is a deficit, but are free to raise all expenses even if there is a deficit can be found in many political manifestos these days. Central planners always see the economic challenges as a problem of demand, and as such cringe at the idea of prudent investment and saving. When GDP growth, gross capital formation, and consumption are lower than what Keynesians would want, they always blame the alleged problem on “too much saving.” This is a ridiculous premise based on the perception that economic cycles and excess capacity do not matter and if companies and citizens don’t spend as much as the government wants, then the public sector should spend a lot more.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That is why tax cuts are hated and government spending plans are hailed. Because tax cuts empower citizens while government spending empowers politicians. An extractive view of the economy in which politicians and some economists always consider that you earn too much and they spend too little.

    The big bet of the huge increases in spending and taxes that we read about all over the eurozone is that:

    a) these will not have an impact on growth,

    b) they will improve public accounts and

    c) they will exceed budget expectations.

    However, we have empirical evidence showing that massive government spending plans and tax hikes generate the opposite effect: weaker economic growth, higher debt and larger imbalances. The probability of attacking potential growth, worsening public accounts and breaching optimistic estimates is more than high.

    The empirical evidence of the last fifteen years shows a range of fiscal multipliers of public spending that, when positive, is very poor (below 1) and in most countries, especially with open and indebted economies, the fiscal multiplier of higher government spending has been negative.

    Fiscal multipliers are particularly negative in times of weakness in public finances, and nobody can deny that the eurozone has exhausted its fiscal space after more than three trillion euro of expansive budgets in a decade.

    More government spending will not spur growth in economies where the public sector already absorbs more than 40% of the GDP, and where the previous large stimulus plans have generated more debt and stagnation.

    Adding tax hikes to the formula is even more damaging. The IMF analyzes 170 cases of fiscal consolidation in 15 advanced economies from 1980 to 2010 and finds a negative impact of a 1% increase in taxes of 1.3% in growth two years later.

    Additionally, the vast majority of empirical studies going until 1983 and especially in the last fifteen years, show a negative impact of tax increases on economic growth and a neutral or negative impact of increases in spending on growth. Moreover, studies on the effect of bigger tax hikes on tax revenues reveal a negative impact on receipts. In fact, a 1% increase in the marginal tax rate may reduce the taxable income base by up to 3.6%.

    The risk for the eurozone is huge because one of the main reasons for its stagnation is precisely the chain of massive fiscal stimulus plans implemented in the past two decades. To say that Germany should copy the fiscal strategy of France, a country that has been in stagnation for three decades defies any economic logic. There is no evidence that Germany is spending or investing ñless than what it needs, rather the opposite.

    The problem of the eurozone is not lack of government spending or taxes, but the excess in both.

    The string of spending increases announced daily in Europe disguise an extremely dangerous bet: that the ECB will bail out the eurozone forever, especially because the diminishing effects of monetary and fiscal policy are evident.

    Tax cuts will not work either if those are not matched with efficiency improvements and red tape cuts precisely to ensure that public services continue to exist within thirty years.

    Burdening the private sector with more taxes and increasing an already bloated government spending may lead the eurozone to the Argentine paradox. By ignoring the sources of wealth generation as well as job creation and expelling them with confiscatory and extractive policies all that is achieved is unemployment and stagnation.

    The eurozone cannot expect to achieve the growth it has not delivered repeating the same mistakes, further weakening an economy that needs to bet on attracting investment, reinforcing growth and improving technology and the competitiveness of companies.

    When politicians charge an economy with large and growing fixed costs, without prioritizing investment attractiveness, productivity and economic freedom, they jeopardize the welfare they pretend to defend.

    The problem of productivity, growth, and employment is not solved by putting obstacles to investment and increasing extractive measures.

    Growth and the welfare state are not strengthened by putting up political spending and debt as pillars of an economy.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/24/2019 – 02:00

    Tags
    Business Finance
    Politics

  • Empire & Interventionism Versus Republic & Noninterventionism
    Empire & Interventionism Versus Republic & Noninterventionism

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    The chaos arising from U.S. interventionism in Syria provides an excellent opportunity to explore the interventionist mind.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Consider the terminology being employed by interventionists: President Trump’s actions in Syria have left a “power vacuum,” one that Russia and Iran are now filling. The United States will no longer have “influence” in the region. “Allies” will no longer be able to trust the U.S. to come to their assistance. Trump’s actions have threatened “national security.” It is now possible that ISIS will reformulate and threaten to take over lands and even regimes in the Middle East.

    This verbiage is classic empire-speak. It is the language of the interventionist and the imperialist.

    Amidst all the interventionist chaos in the Middle East, it is important to keep in mind one critically important fact: None of it will mean a violent takeover of the U.S. government or an invasion and conquest of the United States. The federal government will go on. American life will go on. There will be no army of Muslims, terrorists, Syrians, ISISians, Russians, Chinese, drug dealers, or illegal immigrants coming to get us and take over the reins of the IRS.

    Why is that an important point? Because it shows that no matter what happens in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, life will continue here in the United States. Even if Russia gets to continue controlling Syria, that’s not going to result in a conquest of the United States. The same holds true if ISIS, say, takes over Iraq. Or if Turkey ends up killing lots of Kurds. Or if Syria ends up protecting the Kurds. Or if Iran continues to be controlled by a theocratic state. Or if the Russians retake control over Ukraine.

    It was no different than when North Vietnam ended up winning the Vietnamese civil war. The dominoes did not fall onto the United States and make America Red. It also makes no difference if Egypt continues to be controlled by a brutal military dictatorship. Or that Cuba, North Korea, and China are controlled by communist regimes. Or that Russia is controlled by an authoritarian regime. Or that Myanmar (Burma) is controlled by a totalitarian military regime. America and the federal government will continue standing.

    America was founded as a limited government republic, one that did not send its military forces around the world to slay monsters. That’s not to say that bad things didn’t happen around the world. Bad things have always happened around the world. Dictatorships. Famines. Wars. Civil wars. Revolutions. Empires. Torture. Extra-judicial executions. Tyranny. Oppression. The policy of the United States was that it would not go abroad to fix or clear up those types of things.

    All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world.

    That’s when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak.  Foreign regimes became “allies,” “partners,” and “friends.” Others became “opponents,” “rivals,” or “enemies.” Events thousands of miles away became threats to “national security.”

    That’s when U.S. forces began invading and occupying other countries, waging wars of aggression against them, intervening in foreign wars, revolutions, and civil wars, initiating coups, destroying democratic regimes, establishing an empire of domestic and foreign military bases, and bombing, shooting, killing, assassinating, spying on, maiming, torturing, kidnapping, injuring, and destroying people in countries all over the world.

    The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans. That’s how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap.

    The shift toward empire and interventionism has brought about the destruction of American liberty and privacy here at home. That’s what the assassinations, secret surveillance, torture, and indefinite detentions of American citizens are all about — to supposedly protect us from the dangers produced by U.S. imperialism and interventionism abroad. One might call it waging perpetual war for freedom and peace, both here and abroad.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem  —  the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism. A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy to our land.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 23:50

    Tags
    Politics
    War Conflict

  • Abu Dhabi's Massive New "Snow Park" Has Almost Been Completed
    Abu Dhabi’s Massive New “Snow Park” Has Almost Been Completed

    Today in “when you have more oil money than you know what to do with” news, Abu Dhabi’s massive 11,612 square meter “Snow Park” is reportedly “well on its way to completion”, according to The National. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The park, called Snow Abu Dhabi, will be home to the world’s largest “snow play area” and will be located in the upcoming Reem Mall on Reem Island. It is set to be finished by the end of 2020. Reem Island is a natural island 600 metres off the coast of Abu Dhabi island that is being jointly built out by property developers and real estate companies.

    The entrance to the park will house an area called Snowflake Garden (make your millennial jokes here), which is described as an open-play area with attractions like ice labyrinths. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The park will also host a Crystal Carousel, which is “centred around a twinkling winter forest and all the magical creatures found within.” 

    …whatever the hell that means.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The park will maintain an indoor temperature of -2°C (always an easy task in the middle of the desert) and a snow depth of 20 inches. It will also include a retail outlet that will set hats and cold weather clothing. Which, of course, you can then promptly throw out when exiting the park into the 100 degree desert heat.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The park will also include an attraction called Flurries’ Mountain that leads to the park’s Enchanted Tree. The tree will soar above the park and will have “creative ornamentation” on each of its branches. Employees will be dressed as “winter wonderland-style characters” and, in sum, the park will host 13 different rides and games. 

    Chalk this one up as another high quality use of resources in the middle east…


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 23:30

  • Paul Craig Roberts: Better Relations Between The US And Russia Are Not In The Cards
    Paul Craig Roberts: Better Relations Between The US And Russia Are Not In The Cards

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    By now Russians must wonder if the better relations they desire with the US are ever to be.  US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii is the latest peacemaker to be declared “a Russian asset” by Hillary, the DNC, and the presstitutes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The way the Democrats, the presstitutes, and their Puppet Master – the military/security complex – have it rigged, unless you want to bomb Russia into the stone age, you are a Russian asset.

    How, then, can any American leader advocate bringing the dangerous tensions with Russia to an end?

    Look what happened to Trump when he declared his intention of “normalizing relations with Russia.”  There is nothing more desperate that needs doing, but it cannot happen.

    Two immovable mountains stand in the way.

    One is the military/security complex’s need for an enemy in order to justify the military/security complex’s $1,000 billion dollar annual budget and the power that comes with it. Fifty-eight years ago in his last address to the American people, President Dwight Eisenhower warned that “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.  We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

    Ike’s warning went unheeded, and today, more than a half century later, the military/security complex rules America.

    The other immovable mountain is the US world hegemonic ideology of the  neoconservatives who have controlled US foreign policy since the Clinton regime.  The neoconservatives declare the US to be the “indispensible, exceptional” country with the right to impose its will and agendas on the rest of the world. 

    The collapse of the Soviet Union removed all constraints on Washington’s unilateralism.  There was no longer another global power to get in Washington’s way.  To keep it this way, neoconservative Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz set out the Wolfowitz Doctrine.  The doctrine states that it is the “first objective” of US foreign and military policy to prevent the rise of Russia or any country capable of serving as a check on US unilateral action.  Caught offguard by Vladimir Putin, who restored Russian sovereignty from Russia’s status as an American vassal under Yeltsin, the neoconservatives and their Western media whores have launched massive propaganda attacks on Russia in order to demonize, isolate, marginalize, and perhaps overthrow with American-financed NGOs, as happened to Ukraine in the  Maidan Revolution and as the US is currently attempting in Hong Kong against China.

    The hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives and the military/security complex’s need for an enemy preclude any normalization of relations with Russia. 

    As I and Stephen Cohen have emphasized, the current tensions between the two nuclear superpowers are far more dangerous than during the Cold War.  During the Cold War every American president worked with his Soviet counterpart to reduce tensions. 

    • John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev defused the Cuban missile crisis and removed the US missiles from Turkey.  JFK’s reward was to be assassinated by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who concluded that JFK was soft on communism and a threat to the national security of the United States.

    • President Richard Nixon opened to China and negotiated the SALT I Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Leonid Brezhnev. Nixon’s reward was to be politically assassinated with the Watergate orchestration and forced to resign.

    • President Carter and Brezhnev signed the SALT II Treaty, and Carter was rewarded by the military/security complex throwing its money behind anti-communist Reagan.

    • President Reagan outmaneuvered the military/security complex,  and he and Gorbachev ended the Cold War.

    • The George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union permitted the reunification of Germany, the US would neither incorporate the former Warsaw Pact into NATO nor move NATO one inch to the East.  

    • The Clinton regime reneged on the word of the US Government and moved NATO to Russia’s borders.

    • Subsequent US regimes – George W. Bush, Obama, Trump – have pulled out of the remaining treaties and agreements and, thereby, elevated the tensions between the nuclear superpowers to the pre-Kennedy era.

    The danger of this development is not appreciated. 

    Nuclear warning systems of incoming ICBMs are notorious for false warnings.  During the Cold War both sides received false alarms of incoming attacks, but neither the Amerians nor the Soviets ever pushed the button in response to the warnings. 

    Why?  The reason is that both sides understood that they were working to reduce tensions and to build trust.  Both sides understood that in this atmosphere the alarms had to be false.

    Today the situation is very different.  

    Russia and its leadership have been demonized and excoriated by Western politicians and media.  Americans and their vassals in Europe have been taught to hate and fear Russians.  The Russian government has experienced false accusations never before experienced in diplomatic affairs.  Neither side can possibly trust the other.  Add to this the fact that response times are now in the minutes, and you should be able to comprehend that the world can be blown up due to nothing more than a false alarm.

    For the ideological neoconservatives and the greed-ridden corrupt American military/security complex to put life on Earth under this kind of risk indicates that neither neoconservatives nor armaments industries are capable of subordining their self-interests to life itself.

    Normally, the restrained, non-confrontational responses of Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to American insults and provocative actions would be admirable.  But with the US playing the role of the bully, passive Russian responses to bullying encourage more bullying.  As kids of my generation learned, when confronted with a bully you immediately stand up to him.  Otherwise, he sees you as lacking self-respect and resolve and ups the bullying. The only way to avoid the fight is to stand up to him immediately.

    The Russian government’s failure to stand up to Washington’s bullying guarantees more bullying.  Sooner or later the bullying will cross a line, and Russia will have to fight. 

    A less passive Russian government could do a lot for peace.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 23:10

    Tags
    Politics

  • Gulfstream Is Back In The Race For The World's Biggest Private Jet
    Gulfstream Is Back In The Race For The World’s Biggest Private Jet

    Gulfstream is now (again) gunning for bragging rights to the world’s biggest private jet, according to Bloomberg. Gulfstream’s G650 was unseated as the world’s largest luxury jet by Bombardier’s Global 7500 last year. 

    But now, Gulfstream’s new G700, a roomier version of its flagship G650, is set to debut in 2022 and will be capable of flying 7,500 nautical miles and cruising at just under the speed of sound.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gulfstream President Mark Burns said on Monday that the plane has “the tallest, widest, longest cabin in our industry.”

    Gulfstream is making a bet that the $76 million G700 will entice some of the richest flyers in the world with its large cabin and upgraded range. Qatar Airways has already ordered 10 of the aircraft for its charter service, Qatar Executive.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But the luxury jet market is anything but booming right now. A recent study by Honeywell concluded that deliveries could begin flagging in 2021 as a result of a slowdown in orders. And even though new luxury jet offerings are coming to market this year and next, the industry still faces threats from the ongoing U.S./China trade war, Brexit and a slowing global economy.

    Bombardier’s Global 7500 came to market two years later than planned and was a product of a full-on new design layout. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    David Coleal, president of Bombardier’s aviation unit said: “Global 7500 is the industry flagship. It’s a clean sheet design, built to perform like no other. Remember, anything else out there is just a stretch.”

    Bombardier’s plane has a range of 7,700 nautical miles and can fly at Mach 0.925, also slightly less than the speed of sound. It costs $73 million, has a wingspan of 104 feet and has a cabin with four distinct seating zones.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gulfstream waited on announcing its new plane until it had delivered two new smaller jets: one G500 and one G600. The G600 began shipments in June and the G500 debuted about a year earlier. Both models were introduced in 2014, whereas the flagship G650 debuted in 2012.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 22:50

  • Escobar: Burn, Neoliberalism, Burn!
    Escobar: Burn, Neoliberalism, Burn!

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Neoliberalism is – literally – burning. And from Ecuador to Chile, South America, once again, is showing the way.

    Against the vicious, one-size-fits-all IMF austerity prescription, which deploys weapons of mass economic destruction to smash national sovereignty and foster social inequality, South America finally seems poised to reclaim the power to forge its own history.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Three presidential elections are in play.

    Bolivia’s seem to have been settled this past Sunday – even as the usual suspects are yelling “Fraud!” Argentina and Uruguay are on next Sunday.

    Blowback against what David Harvey has splendidly conceptualized as accumulation by dispossession is, and will continue to be, a bitch. It will eventually reach Brazil – which as it stands continues to be torn to pieces by Pinochetist ghosts. Brazil, eventually, after immense pain, will rise up again. After all, the excluded and humiliated all across South America are finally discovering they carry a Joker inside themselves.

    Chile privatizes everything

    The question posed by the Chilean street is stark: “What’s worse, to evade taxes or to invade the subway?” It’s all a matter of doing the class struggle math. Chile’s GDP grew 1,1% last year while the profits of the largest corporations grew ten times more. It’s not hard to find from where the huge gap was extracted. The Chilean street stresses how water, electricity, gas, health, medicine, transportation, education, the salar (salt flats) in Atacama, even the glaciers were privatized.

    That’s classic accumulation by dispossession, as the cost of living has become unbearable for the overwhelming majority of 19 million Chileans, whose average monthly income does not exceed $500.

    Paul Walder, director of the Politika portal and an analyst for the Latin-American Center of Strategic Analysis (CLAE) notes how less than a week after the end of protests in Ecuador – which forced neoliberal vulture Lenin Moreno to ditch a gas price hike – Chile entered a very similar cycle of protests.

    Walder correctly defines Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera as the turkey in a long-running banquet that involves the whole Chilean political class. No wonder the mad as hell Chilean street now makes no difference between the government, the political parties and the police. Pinera, predictably, criminalized all social movements; sent the army to the streets for unmitigated repression; and installed a curfew.

    Pinera is Chile’s 7th wealthiest billionaire, with assets valued at $2.7 billion, spread out in airlines, supermarkets, TV, credit cards and football. He’s a sort of turbo-charged Moreno, a neoliberal Pinochetist. Pinera’s brother, Jose, was actually a minister under Pinochet, and the man who implemented Chile’s privatized welfare system – a key source of social disintegration and despair. And it’s all interlinked: current Brazilian Finance Minister Paulo Guedes, a Chicago boy, lived and worked in Chile at the time, and now wants to repeat the absolutely disastrous experiment in Brazil.

    The bottom line is that the economic “model” that Guedes wants to impose in Brazil has totally collapsed in Chile.

    Chile’s top resource is copper. Copper mines, historically, were owned by the US, but then were nationalized by President Salvador Allende in 1971; thus war criminal Henry Kissinger’s plan to eliminate Allende, which culminated in the original 9/11, in 1973.

    Pinochet’s dictatorship later re-privatized the mines. The largest of them all, Escondida, in the Atacama desert – which accounts for 9% of the world’s copper – belongs to Anglo-Australian giant Bhp Billiton. The biggest copper buyer in world markets is China. At least two-thirds of income generated by Chilean copper goes not to the Chilean people, but to foreign multinationals.

    The Argentine debacle

    Before Chile, Ecuador was semi-paralyzed: inactive schools, no urban transport, food shortages, rampant speculation, serious disturbances on oil exports. Under fire by the mobilization of 25,000 indigenous peoples in the streets, President Lenin Moreno cowardly left a power void in Quito, transferring the seat of government to Guayaquil. Indigenous peoples took over the governance in many important cities and towns. The National Assembly was AWOL for almost two weeks, without the will to even try to solve the political crisis.

    By announcing a state of emergency and a curfew, Moreno laid out a red carpet for the Armed Forces – and Pinera duly repeated the procedure in Chile. The difference is that in Ecuador Moreno bet on Divide and Rule between the indigenous peoples’ movements and the rest of the population. Pinera resorts to outright brute force.

    Apart from applying the same old tactics of raising prices to obtain further IMF funds, Ecuador also displayed a classic articulation between a neoliberal government, big business and the proverbial US ambassador, in this case Michael Fitzpatrick, a former Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere matters in charge of the Andean region, Brazil and the Southern Cone up to 2018.

    The clearest case of total neoliberal failure in South America is Argentina. Less than two months ago in Buenos Aires, I saw the vicious social effects of the peso in free fall, inflation at 54%, a de facto food emergency and the impoverishment of even solid sectors of the middle class. Mauricio Macri’s government literally burned most of the $58 billion IMF loan – there’s still $5 billion to arrive. Macri is set to lose the presidential elections: Argentines will have to foot his humongous bill.

    Macri’s economic model could not but be Pinera’s – actually Pinochet’s, where public services are run as a business. A key connection between Macri and Pinera is the ultra-neoliberal Freedom Foundation sponsored by Mario Vargas Llosa, who at least boasts the redeeming quality of having been a decent novelist a long time ago.

    Macri, a millionaire, disciple of Ayn Rand and incapable of displaying empathy towards anyone, is essentially a cipher, pre-fabricated by his Ecuadorian guru Jaime Duran Barba as a robotic product of data mining, social networks and focus groups. A hilarious take on his insecurities may be found in La Cabeza de Macri: Como Piensa, Vive y Manda el Primer Presidente de la No Politica, by Franco Lindner.

    Among myriad shenanigans, Macri is indirectly linked to fabulous money laundering machine HSBC. The president of HSBC in Argentina was Gabriel Martino. In 2015, four thousand Argentine accounts worth $3.5 billion were discovered at HSBC in Switzerland. This spectacular capital flight was engineered by the bank. Yet Martino was essentially saved by Macri, and became one of his top advisers.

    Beware the IMF vulture ventures

    All eyes now should be on Bolivia. As of this writing, President Evo Morales won Sunday’s presidential elections in the first round – obtaining, by a slim margin, the necessary 10% spread for a candidate to win if he does not obtain the 50% plus one of the votes. Morales essentially got it right at the end, when votes from rural zones and from abroad were fully counted, and the opposition had already started to hit the streets to apply pressure. Not surprisingly, the OAS – servile to US interests – has proclaimed a “lack of trust in the electoral process”.

    Evo Morales represents a project of sustainable, inclusive development, and crucially, autonomous from international finance. No wonder the whole Washington Consensus apparatus hates his guts. Economy Minister Luis Arce Catacora cut to the chase: “When Evo Morales won his first election in 2005, 65% of the population was low income, now 62% of the population has access to a medium income.”

    The opposition, without any project except wild privatizations, and no concern whatsoever for social policies, is left to yell “Fraud!”, but this could take a very nasty turn in the next few days. In the tony suburbs of southern La Paz, class hate against Evo Morales is the favorite sport: the President is referred to as “indio”, a “tyrant” and “ignorant”. Cholos of the Altiplano are routinely defined by white landowning elites in the plains as an “evil race”.

    None of that changes the fact that Bolivia is now the most dynamic economy in Latin America, as stressed by top Argentine analyst Atilio Boron.

    The campaign to discredit Morales, which is bound to become even more vicious, is part of imperial 5G war, which, Boron writes, totally obliterates “the chronic poverty that the absolute majority of the population suffered for centuries”, a state that always “maintained the population under total lack of institutional protection” and the “pillaging of natural wealth and the common good”.

    Of course the specter of IMF vulture ventures won’t vanish in South America like a charm. Even as the usual suspects, via World Bank reports, now seem “concerned” about poverty; Scandinavians offer the Nobel Prize on Economics to three academics studying poverty; and Thomas Piketty, in Capital and Ideology, tries to disassemble the hegemonic justification for accumulation of wealth.

    What still remains absolutely off limits for the guardians of the current world-system is to really investigate hardcore neoliberalism as the root cause of wealth hyper-concentration and social inequality. It’s not enough to offer Band-Aids anymore. The streets of South America are alight. Blowback is now in full effect.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 22:30

  • Never Mind The Algos: Fund Manager Earns 10%+ Returns Using FBI Interview Techniques
    Never Mind The Algos: Fund Manager Earns 10%+ Returns Using FBI Interview Techniques

    Australian money manager Rhett Kessler learned the art of negotiation from the masters: professional FBI Agents who work with terrorists, master criminals and desperate psychopaths who got in way over their head.

    Now, the senior fund manager of the $727 million Pengana Australian Equities Fund, is telling Bloomberg that the FBI’s interview techniques for getting under the skin of CEOs during criminal investigations – a tool used to catch them in lies, exaggerations and deflections of blame for their actions – can also be useful for investment analysts seeking to evaluate companies and their management.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Rhett Kessler

    In a way, Kessler’s hedge fund is a lot like the FBI: They’re constantly investigating targets, only the fund’s targets are usually public companies, not criminals. Like the FBI, “We have a dossier on each management team.”

    Here’s how Kessler puts these tools to work: Before looking too deeply into a company, he first tries to gauge whether they’re trustworthy and competent. The approach has yielded amazing returns for Kessler: his fund has posted double-digit returns, on average, since it was founded in 2008.

    But what’s most important here is that Kessler’s interview technique appears to be producing reliable, steady returns at a time when the hottest funds of the day are dumping millions of dollars into building complex algorithms and embracing other quant-driven techniques to try and gain an edge over the competition. Kessler has apparently found an edge just by talking to people, a much less expensive strategy.

    Here’s more from BBG:

    The Pengana Australian Equities Fund has gained 10.4% per year, net of fees, since July 2008, topping a 6.7% advance in the Australian Stock Exchange All Ordinaries Index, according to the fund’s most recent report on its website. Kessler says the rush into passive investing and quantitative strategies in recent years will “create a better environment for stock pickers as the herd gets bigger.”

    Then again, the fact that Kesslerr has millions of dollars at his disposal makes it easier to gain access to key figures within companies.

    Many of Kessler’s best-performing names are small companies involved in ostensibly “boring” businesses.

    Kessler’s fund counts among its top holdings stocks such as Aristocrat Leisure Ltd., which sells gaming machines to casinos and clubs, and CSL Ltd., a maker of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products derived from human plasma. Aristocrat is up 45% this year, while CSL has risen 35%.

    Here’s a rundown of their top holdings:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Presently, Kessler’s main fund has 15% of its assets in cash – wary of deteriorating economic data in Australia and high stock valuations. If any young investors ever have an opportunity to take a similar class with FBI instructors, they should jump at the chance. Among the techniques that Kessler learned: Asking questions to which you already know the answers.

    This allows Kessler to determine whether the CEO is honest, or prone to exaggeration. These personality traits, Kessler found, can have a tremendous impact on how an individual runs a business.

    “For every 10 questions we are going to ask, we all know the answers to three or four of them,” he said. Some of them will be to show the person in a good light. Some of them will be to show the person in a bad light. And we know the answers. “

    Another technique he employs: What they call “A, B, C, D” questions.

    He sometimes asks what he calls the “A, B, C, D question.” In this, the fund manager has deliberately missed the point, leaving out one piece of information that’s crucial to understanding the situation – something that reflects badly on the executive. He’s checking if the interviewee will point it out.

    “That’s why we call it the A, B, C, D question,” Kessler said. “Are they a volunteer of bad information or not?”

    That question is supposed to gauge whether executives will easily volunteer information that reflects poorly on them or the company. Readers can probably imagine how this might be helpful.   

    Bottom line: If you ever have the opportunity to take a class about interrogation techniques, take it.                                                                                                                  


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 22:10

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • Rickards: For Trump, "It's The Economy, Stupid!"
    Rickards: For Trump, “It’s The Economy, Stupid!”

    Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    The trade war is taking a heavy toll on China. Chinese growth slowed to 6% in the third quarter, slower than expected and the slowest growth rate since 1992.

    That 6% growth represents a sharp drop from the 6.8% growth China registered in the first quarter of 2018. China’s growth still exceeds developed economies by far, but it is notably weak relative to China’s past performance and relative to expectations.

    China is the world’s second-largest economy (after the U.S.) and produces over 16% of global output. A 0.5% decline in Chinese output slows global growth by 0.08%, which is nontrivial considering that global growth is expected to be only 3% in 2019, according to the IMF.

    More importantly, China’s growth figures are almost certainly overstated.

    About 45% of Chinese GDP is “investment” (compared with about 25% for a developed economy), but 50% of that investment is wasted on white elephant projects and ghost cities that will not earn returns. If that wasted investment were subtracted from GDP, China’s actual growth rate would be 5.8%.

    Other adjustments for overlooked bad debts and “smoothing” of official figures would put China’s actual growth closer to 4% or even lower.

    China’s economy is a house of cards and even government figures are beginning to show that’s true. The real figures are worse. China’s best case is a possible recession and its worst case is a full-blown financial panic.

    China is losing the trade wars, losing the public relations wars and beginning to show cracks in the foundation.

    All are good reasons for investors to keep away.

    The news might be bad for China. But it’s good for President Trump, despite the latest impeachment nothingburger.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The economy will be the deciding factor in next year’s election.

    The 1992 Bill Clinton election campaign war room had a sign that said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

    That was intended as a constant reminder to campaign staff that they were to focus on U.S. economic performance almost exclusively in their efforts.

    Clinton had come from nowhere to become the Democratic nominee and challenge George H. W. Bush, who was running for reelection. Bush’s approval ratings in 1991 were over 90% after he led the successful campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

    He looked unbeatable for reelection in 1992, which is one reason so few Democrats jumped into the race. Yet Bush had an Achilles heel, which was the economy.

    The U.S. had a fairly mild recession from July 1990–March 1991. The recovery was weak and most Americans believed we were still in recession in 1992 even though the recession was technically over by then. Jobs are a lagging indicator and many workers who were laid off in 1991 still had not returned to work by 1992.

    Clinton’s strategist, James Carville, understood that jobs were more important than foreign policy triumphs. He urged Clinton to run on the economy, and Clinton won.

    In fact, presidents running for a second term almost always win reelection unless there is a recession late in the first term. That’s what cost Bush and Jimmy Carter their reelections.

    Otherwise, it’s smooth sailing for second-term victories. The good news for Trump is that he fits the mold of presidents heading for reelection.

    A new projection by Moody’s shows Trump winning as many as 351 electoral votes (only 270 electoral votes are needed to be president). Moody’s analysis is based on state-by-state economic conditions and historic voting patterns, not polls.

    Trump should win all of the swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin) and pick up new states won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 (Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia). It looks like a victory of historic proportions for Trump… as long as he avoids a recession.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 21:50

    Tags
    Politics
    Business Finance

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 23

Today’s News 23rd October 2019

  • How Much Oil Is At Stake In Syria?
    How Much Oil Is At Stake In Syria?

    Though it’s as yet uncertain whether the Pentagon is actually going to execute the plan, Trump is mulling keeping a small US troop contingency in Syria in order to “secure the oil”. 

    The president said at a cabinet meeting Monday: “I always said if you’re going in, keep the oil,” the WSJ reported. “We’ll work something out with the Kurds so that they have some money, so that they have some cash flow. Maybe we’ll get one of our big oil companies to go in and do it properly.”

    In response, former special presidential anti-ISIL envoy Brett McGurk, who served under both the Obama and Trump administrations, stated the obvious: “Oil, like it or not, is owned by the Syrian state,” he said Monday. “Maybe there are new lawyers, but it was just illegal for an American company to go and seize and exploit these assets.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Oil well pumps in the Rmeilan oil field in Syria’s north-eastern Hasakah province, via Kurdistan24.

    Obviously the US doesn’t “need” Syrian oil, but would utilize seized oil and gas fields as part of its continued campaign of economic strangulation against Damascus and Tehran.

    Syria’s smashed war economy has suffered further over the fact that it has for years been cut off from its own domestic energy supplies — first by ISIS occupation of its key oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates, and then by US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.

    But the question remains: how much oil is actually at stake in Syria?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The below analysis is provided by “Ehsani” — a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment. 

    * * *

    Total reserves are estimated at 2.5 Billion barrels and at least 75% of these reserves are in the fields surrounding Deir Al Zor.

    Current revenue from oil sales goes to the [US-backed] SDF, currently estimated at $10 million a month. These revenues are expected to rise should U.S. help in modernizing current fields. SDF can then sell the oil to Damascus and/or Kurdistan in Iraq which will in turn sell to Turkey.

    Turkey’s current oil consumption is about 1 million barrels a day. Syria’s reserves are 2.5 billion barrels and daily production can be quickly increased to approximately 300K barrels a day.

    The SDF can therefore look to supply at least one-fifth of Turkey’s needs via Iraq.

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

    Turkey will also look to obtain direct access to Syria’s Rumeilan oil field in the northeast should it complete its seizing of the North-East zone. Between them, Ankara and the SDF (with protection of U.S military) can soon control up to 90 percent of Syria’s 2.5 billion oil reserves.

    Syria’s 2.5 billion barrels in oil reserves are rather “negligible” compared to say Saudi Arabia, with oil reserves at around 268 billion barrels (over 100 times that of Syria). Note that the SDF is currently selling Syria’s oil at around $30 per barrel.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 02:45

    Tags
    Politics
    Business Finance

  • The UK Reaches A Remarkable Renewable Milestone
    The UK Reaches A Remarkable Renewable Milestone

    Authored by Tsventana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

    The UK has just ended its first quarter ever in which electricity generation from renewables outpaced fossil fuel-fired power generation – a landmark achievement for the country that started the Industrial Revolution with coal.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While Britain’s achievement pales in comparison to other renewable champions in Europe and elsewhere, it is nevertheless a milestone that highlights the advance of renewable energy in the world over the past decade. And the share of renewable energy in power generation is set to continuously grow, everywhere.

    Declining technology costs and battery prices across the board have made unsubsidized wind and solar power the cheapest options for electricity generation in major economies, including India and China. Solar and wind power is now cheaper than coal in most of the world.

    In the UK, as much as 40 percent of electricity generation in Q3 came from renewables—including wind, biomass, and solar—while fossil fuels accounted for 39 percent of generation, an analysis of the UK’s Q3 electricity generation from Carbon Brief showed this week. Most of the remaining generation came from nuclear power, which generated 19 percent of UK’s electricity in that quarter.

    This was the first quarter in the UK history in which renewables generation exceeded fossil fuels since the first power plant opened in Britain in 1882.

    Of the 39-percent share of fossil fuels, 38 percent was natural gas and less than 1 percent came from coal and oil combined, Carbon Brief said.

    The share of coal in the UK’s power generation dropped from just above 30 percent in 2009 to less than 3 percent in January-May 2019, National Grid said earlier this year, noting that in full 2019 “Britain is set to achieve a historic electricity generation milestone this year, with more electricity generated from zero carbon sources than fossil fuels.”  

    As the UK aims to phase out coal by 2025, coal-fired electricity generation in the country has been at all-time lows in recent months. In May, the UK went coal-free for a full week for the first time since the 1880s, as its electricity generation used 0 percent coal-fired power. 

    Meanwhile, in the UK’s latest Contracts for Difference (CfD), twelve new renewable energy projects won contracts to provide some 6 GW of capacity—enough to power over seven million UK homes at record low costs as renewables are expected to come online below market prices for the first time, the UK government said.

    “The prices are so low that the windfarms could generate electricity more cheaply than existing gas-fired power stations as early as 2023,” Carbon Brief analysis suggested.

    Rising wind – especially offshore wind – capacity has been the main driver of the UK’s growing renewable capacity and electricity generation in recent years.

    There are more advanced ‘renewable’ countries in Europe—Sweden, for example, generates more than 54 percent of its electricity from renewable sources on a sustainable basis. The country targets to have 100 percent renewable electricity generation by 2040. Denmark generates more than 43 percent of its electricity from wind power.

    Costa Rica, Norway, and Iceland generate nearly 100 percent of their electricity from renewables, but hydropower is a major source of their generation.

    Europe’s largest economy, Germany, saw a record share of renewable generation in the first half of 2019, thanks to stormy weather that boosted wind power generation.

    Amid the heated debates over climate change and ways to save the planet before it’s too late, three countries and their energy policies and power generation will shape the trends in renewables on a global scale—China, India, and the United States—due to the size of their energy markets.

    Because of its huge market and huge investments in renewable energy capacity installation, China is capable of shocking the market with policy decisions.

    In the United States, natural gas and wind are winning, while coal is losing in the race for shares of power generation. This year, annual electricity generation from wind in the U.S. is set to exceed hydropower generation for the first time and to become the leading source of renewable electricity generation—and it will stay so in 2020, the EIA says.  

    Globally, wind and solar are expected to account for a combined 50-percent share of electricity generation in 2050, BloombergNEF said in its New Energy Outlook 2019.

    Europe is set to decarbonize the furthest and the fastest, while coal-heavy China and gas-heavy U.S. will play catch-up, BNEF says, noting that “wind and solar are now cheapest across more than two-thirds of the world. By 2030 they undercut commissioned coal and gas almost everywhere.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 02:00

  • The Pathocracy Of The Deep State: Tyranny At The Hands Of A Psychopathic Government
    The Pathocracy Of The Deep State: Tyranny At The Hands Of A Psychopathic Government

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.”

    – Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School

    Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?”

    The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is no difference between psychopaths and politicians.

    Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic criminals and elected officials who lie to their constituents, trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless citizens.

    Psychopaths and politicians both have a tendency to be selfish, callous, remorseless users of others, irresponsible, pathological liars, glib, con artists, lacking in remorse and shallow.

    Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths, exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions, have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have socially deviant lifestyles, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Democrats or Republicans.

    Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies: totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms.

    Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. “At that point, the government operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups,” author James G. Long notes. “We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is typical of psychopathic systems, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed.”

    In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation, self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.

    Incredibly, despite clear evidence of the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic government, voters continue to elect psychopaths to positions of power and influence.

    According to investigative journalist Zack Beauchamp, “In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II using ‘psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president.’ They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath’s characteristic fearlessness and low anxiety levels — traits that appear to help Presidents, but also might cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people’s lives.”

    The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness and an utter lack of conscience are among the defining traits of the sociopath.

    When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse—all the while refusing to own up to its failings—we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.

    Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

    Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can spread like a virus among the populace. As an academic study into pathocracy concluded, “[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous.”

    People don’t simply line up and salute. It is through one’s own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order that they become agents of good or evil.

    Much depends on how leaders “cultivate a sense of identification with their followers,” says Professor Alex Haslam. “I mean one pretty obvious thing is that leaders talk about ‘we’ rather than ‘I,’ and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about ‘we-ness’ and then getting people to want to act in terms of that ‘we-ness,’ to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is ‘America.’”

    The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its citizens. To this end, “we the people” have become “we the police state.”

    We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.

    Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.

    Writing for ThinkProgress, Beauchamp suggests that “one of the best cures to bad leaders may very well be political democracy.”

    But what does this really mean in practical terms?

    It means holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff using every available means at our disposal: through investigative journalism (what used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate) that enlightens and informs, through whistleblower complaints that expose corruption, through lawsuits that challenge misconduct, and through protests and mass political action that remind the powers-that-be that “we the people” are the ones that call the shots.

    Remember, education precedes action. Citizens need to the do the hard work of educating themselves about what the government is doing and how to hold it accountable. Don’t allow yourselves to exist exclusively in an echo chamber that is restricted to views with which you agree. Expose yourself to multiple media sources, independent and mainstream, and think for yourself.

    For that matter, no matter what your political leanings might be, don’t allow your partisan bias to trump the principles that serve as the basis for our constitutional republic. As Beauchamp notes, “A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check.”

    That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already lost.

    Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.

    Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside unsupervised, then it will be too late.

    This much I know: we are not faceless numbers. We are not cogs in the machine. We are not slaves.

    We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free—that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.

    The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

    Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be free, and until we can stand firm in the face of threats to our freedoms, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic police state run by political psychopaths.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/23/2019 – 00:05

    Tags
    Politics

  • Visualizing The World's 20 Most Profitable Companies
    Visualizing The World’s 20 Most Profitable Companies

    The biggest chunk of the earnings pie is increasingly split by fewer and fewer companies.

    In the U.S. for example, Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins points out that about 50% of all profit generated by public companies goes to just 30 companies — back in 1975, it took 109 companies to accomplish the same feat:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This power-law dynamic also manifests itself at a global level — and perhaps it’s little surprise that the world’s most profitable companies generate mind-bending returns that would make any accountant blush.

    Which Company Makes the Most Per Day?

    Today’s infographic comes to us from HowMuch.net, and it uses data from Fortune to illustrate how much profit top global companies actually rake in on a daily basis.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The 20 most profitable companies in the world are listed below in order, and we’ve also broken the same data down per second:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Saudi Arabian Oil Company, known to most as Saudi Aramco, is by far the world’s most profitable company, raking in a stunning $304 million of profits every day. When translated to a more micro scale, that works out to $3,519 per second.

    You’ve likely seen Saudi Aramco in the news lately, though for other reasons.

    The giant state-owned company has been rearing to go public at an aggressive $2 trillion valuation, but it’s since delayed that IPO multiple times, most recently stating the listing will take place in December 2019 or January 2020. Company-owned refineries were also the subject of drone attacks last month, which took offline 5.7 million bpd of oil production temporarily.

    Despite these challenges, Saudi Aramco still stands pretty tall — after all, such blows are softened when you churn out the same amount of profit as Apple, Alphabet, and Facebook combined.

    Numbers on an Annual Basis

    Bringing in over $300 million per day of profit is pretty hard to comprehend, but the numbers are even more unfathomable when they are annualized.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    On an annual basis, Saudi Aramco is raking in $111 billion of profit per year, and that’s with oil prices sitting in the $50-$70 per barrel range.

    To put this number in perspective, take a look at Chevron. The American oil giant is one of the 20 biggest companies on the S&P 500, but it generated just $15 billion in profit in 2018 and currently sits at a $221 billion market capitalization.

    That puts Chevron’s profits at roughly 10% of Aramco’s — and if Aramco does IPO at a $2 trillion valuation, that would put Chevron at roughly 10% of its market cap, as well.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 23:45

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • The Four A's Of American Policy Failure In Syria
    The Four A’s Of American Policy Failure In Syria

    Authored by Scott Ritter via The American Conservative,

    How events in Afghanistan, Astana, Adana, and Ankara all led to the victory of Russian diplomacy over U.S. force…

    The ceasefire agreement brokered by Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday accomplishes very little outside of putting window dressing on a foregone conclusion. Simply put, the Turks will be able to achieve their objectives of clearing a safe zone of Kurdish forces south of the Turkish border, albeit under a U.S. sanctioned agreement. In return, the U.S. agrees not to impose economic sanctions on Turkey.

    So basically it doesn’t change anything that’s already been set into motion by the Turkish invasion of northern Syria. But it does signal the end of the American experiment in Syrian regime change, with the United States supplanted by Russia as the shot caller in Middle Eastern affairs.

    To understand how we got to this point, we need to navigate the four A’s that underpin America’s failed policy vis-à-vis Syria—Afghanistan, Astana, Adana, and Ankara.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The first, Afghanistan, represents the epitome of covert American meddling in regional affairs—Operation Cyclone, the successful CIA-run effort to arm and equip anti-communist rebels in Afghanistan to confront the Soviet Army from 1979 to 1989. The success of the Afghanistan experience helped shape an overly optimistic assessment by the administration of President Barack Obama that a similarly successful effort could be had in Syria by covertly training and equipping anti-Assad rebels.

    The second, Astana, is the capital city of Kazakhstan, recently renamed Nur Sultan in March 2019. Since 2017, Astana has played host to a series of summits that have become known as “the Astana Process,” a Russian-directed diplomatic effort ostensibly designed to facilitate a peaceful ending to the Syrian crisis, but in reality part of a larger Russian-run effort to sideline American regime change efforts in Syria.

    The Astana Process was sold as a complementary effort to the U.S.-backed, UN-brokered Geneva Talks, which were initially convened in 2012 to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. The adoption by the U.S. of an “Assad must go” posture doomed the Geneva Talks from the outset. The Astana Process was the logical outcome of this American failure.

    The third “A”—Adana—is a major city located in southern Turkey, some 35 kilometers inland from the Mediterranean Sea. It’s home to the Incirlik Air Base, which hosts significant U.S. Air Force assets, including some 50 B-61 nuclear bombs. It also hosted a meeting between Turkish and Syrian officials in October 1998 for the purpose of crafting a diplomatic solution to the problem presented by forces belonging to the Kurdish People’s Party, or PKK, who were carrying out attacks inside Turkey from camps located within Syria.

    The resulting agreement, known as the Adana Agreement, helped prevent a potential war between Turkey and Syria by formally recognizing the respective sovereignty and inviolability of their common border. In 2010, the two nations expanded the 1998 deal into a formal treaty governing cooperation and joint action, inclusive of intelligence sharing on designated terrorist organizations (i.e., the PKK). The Adana Agreement/Treaty was all but forgotten in the aftermath of the 2011 Syrian crisis, as Turkey embraced regime change regarding the Assad government, only to be resuscitated by Russian President Vladimir Putin during talks with Erdogan in Moscow in January 2019. The re-introduction of the moribund agreement into the Syrian-Turkish political dynamic successfully created a diplomatic bridge between the two countries, paving the way for a formal resolution of their considerable differences.

    The final “A”—Ankara—is perhaps the most crucial when it comes to understanding the demise of the American position in Syria. Ankara is the Turkish capital, situated in the central Anatolian plateau. In September 2019, Ankara played host to a summit between Erdogan, Putin, and Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani. While the ostensible focus of the summit was to negotiate a ceasefire in the rebel-held Syrian province of Idlib, where Turkish-backed militants were under incessant attack by the combined forces of Russia and Syria, the real purpose was to facilitate an endgame to the Syrian crisis.

    Russia’s rejection of the Turkish demands for a ceasefire were interpreted by the Western media as a sign of the summit’s failure. But the opposite was true—Russia backed Turkey’s demand for a security corridor along the Turkish-Syrian border, and accepted Ankara’s characterization of the American-backed Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) as “terrorists.” This agreement, combined with Turkey’s willingness to recognize the outcome of Syrian presidential elections projected to take place in 2021, paved the way for the political reconciliation between Turkey and Syria. It also hammered the last nail in the coffin of America’s regime change policy regarding Bashar al-Assad.

    There is little mention of the four A’s in American politics and the mainstream media. Instead there’s only a skewed version of reality, which portrays the American military presence in Syria as part and parcel of a noble alliance between the U.S. and the Kurdish SDF to confront the ISIS scourge. This ignores the reality that the U.S. has been committed to regime change in Syria since 2011, and that the fight against ISIS was merely a sideshow to this larger policy objective.

    “Assad must go.” Those three words have defined American policy on Syria since they were first alluded to by President Obama in an official White House statement released in August 2011. The initial U.S. strategy did not involve an Afghanistan-like arming of rebel forces, but rather a political solution under the auspices of policies and entities created under the administration of President George W. Bush. In 2006, the State Department created the Iran-Syrian Operations Group, or ISOG, which oversaw interdepartmental coordination of regime change options in both Iran and Syria.

    Though ISOG was disbanded in 2008, its mission was continued by other American agencies. One of the byproducts of the work initiated by ISOG was the creation of Syrian political opposition groups that were later morphed by the Obama administration into an entity known as the Syrian National Council, or SNC. When Obama demanded that Assad must step aside in August 2011, he envisioned that the Syrian president would be replaced by the SNC. This was the objective of the Geneva Talks brokered by the United Nations and the Arab League in 2011-2012. One of the defining features of those talks was the insistence on the part of the U.S., UK, and SNC that the Assad government not be allowed to participate in any discussion about the political future of Syria. This condition was rejected by Russia, and the talks ultimately failed. Efforts to revive the Geneva Process likewise floundered on this point.

    Faced with this diplomatic failure, Obama turned to the CIA to undertake an Afghanistan-like arming of Syrian rebels to accomplish on the ground what could not be around a table in Geneva.

    The CIA took advantage of Turkish animosity toward Syria in the aftermath of suppression of anti-Syrian government demonstrations in 2011 to funnel massive quantities of military equipment, weapons, and ammunition from Libya to Turkey, where they were used to arm a number of anti-Assad rebels operating under the umbrella of the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” or FSA. In 2013, the CIA took direct control of the arm and equip program, sending teams to Turkey and Jordan to train the FSA. This effort, known as Operation Timber Sycamore, was later supplemented with a Department of Defense program to provide anti-tank weapons to the Syrian opposition.

    American efforts to create a viable armed opposition ultimately failed, with many of the weapons and equipment eventually falling into the hands of radical jihadist groups aligned with al-Qaeda and, later, ISIS. The emergence of ISIS as a regional threat in 2014 led to the U.S. building ties with Syrian Kurds as an alternative vector for implementation of its Syrian policy objectives.

    While the fight against ISIS was real, it was done in the context of the American occupation of fully one third of Syria’s territory, including oil fields and agricultural resources. As recently as January 2019, the U.S. was justifying the continued presence of forces in Syria as a means of containing the Iranian presence there; the relationship with the SDF and Syrian Kurds was little more than a front to facilitate this policy.

    Turkish incursion into Syria is the direct manifestation of the four A’s that define the failure of American policy in Syria—Afghanistan, Astana, Adana and Ankara. It represents the victory of Russian diplomacy over American force of arms. This is a hard pill for most Americans to swallow, which is why many are busy crafting a revisionist history that both glorifies and justifies failed American policy by wrapping it in the flag of our erstwhile Kurdish allies.

    But the American misadventure in Syria was never going to end well—bad policy never does. For the American troops caught up in the collapse of the decades-long effort of the United States to overthrow the Assad government, the retreat from Syria was every bit as ignominious as the retreats of all defeated military forces before them. But at least our forces left Syria alive, and not inside body bags—which was an all too real alternative had they remained in place to face the overwhelming forces of geopolitical reality in transition.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 23:25

    Tags
    Politics

  • The 2020 Election Is Shaping Up To Be An Expensive Run
    The 2020 Election Is Shaping Up To Be An Expensive Run

    President Trump has more cash on hand than any single Democratic primary candidate, a product of his unorthodox campaign that started amassing money his first day in the White House, a move no other president in U.S. history has done.

    While President Trump is gearing up for the general election, there are still 18 Democratic candidates who are fighting to become the party’s nominee in the primary. As Statista’s Sarah Feldman notes, Senator Bernie Sanders has the most cash on hand, followed closely by Senator Elizabeth Warren. Mayor Pete Buttigieg rounds out the three leading Democrats by cash on hand. All top three Democratic hopefuls have over double the cash that former Vice President Joe Biden has on hand. Former Vice President Joe Biden has a moderate $9 million in cash, a number that hasn’t changed much since last quarter.

    Infographic: The 2020 Election Is Shaping Up To Be an Expensive Run | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The amount of cash on hand includes money from fundraising, and any funds from any previous presidential, senate, or congressional campaigns. The cash on hand metric provides insights into how much wiggle room campaigns have to grow their staff, expand their operations, and develop their advertising strategy. Candidates need to do all three to gain traction in early primary and caucus states.

    Many of the middling and cash-strapped candidates will be in danger of running out of funds, or not meeting the DNC’s stringent fundraising threshold to make the next debate stage. The fundraising requirement involves getting 130,000 donors, 400 of whom need to be from at least 20 states.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 23:05

    Tags
    Politics

  • China Just Injected The Most Liquidity Since January… And It's Not Enough
    China Just Injected The Most Liquidity Since January… And It’s Not Enough

    Just days after China’s GDP unexpectedly dropped to a sub-consensus 6.0%, the lowest in three decades (with Beijing now set to reveal a 5-handle GDP in the coming months), China watchers were convinced that this week would start with Beijing again lowering its “Libor rate“, i.e., the previously discussed Loan Prime Rate, especially with the Fed expected to cut rates once again next week. However, that did not happen as China kept its one-year prime rate for new corporate loans unchanged in October, at 4.2%, and above the 4.15% consensus estimate. The five-year benchmark was also kept unchanged at 4.85%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As we reported previously, the Loan Prime Rate, also called China’s “Libor”, is a revamped market indicator of the price that lenders charge clients for new loans, and is linked to the rate at which the central bank will lend financial institutions cash for a year. The rate, which is updated once a month, is made up of submissions from a panel of 18 banks, although ultimately it is Beijing that sets the final rate.

    Analysts were quick to step in and “explain” away the unexpected move: Commerzbank’s Zhou Hao said that a static one-year rate shows China “may be trying to balance the shrinking margins of banks with support to the real economy,” adding that “the PBOC remains restrained on policy easing.”

    The market, however, was less sanguine, as the PBOC’s lack of easing was promptly taken as an ill-omen: China’s government bonds dropped while money-market rates climbed, amid bets that the policy makers are not in a rush to loosen monetary policy (why? perhaps China’s gargantuan debt load and rapidly devaluing currency have something to do with it). On Monday, the yield on 10-year sovereign notes rose three basis points to 3.22%, the highest since July 1, while the costs on 12-month interest-rate swaps advanced to the highest level since late May.

    While the Chinese economy has been under pressure amid a prolonged trade dispute with the US, many have expected that the central bank would match the Fed’s easing and lower corporate borrowing costs and further cut bank reserve ratios. However, so far the PBOC hasn’t embarked on an aggressive stimulus program as some market watchers had hoped.

    “It’s not in line with market expectations,” said ANZ Bank China economist Zhaopeng Xing. “The PBOC intends to reserve room for future headwinds.”

    Well, if that’s the case, then the headwinds hit just one day later, when the PBOC used open market operations to inject the largest amount of cash into the banking system since May, flooding the local financial system with a net 250 billion in reverse repos (for those confused, a reverse repo in China is the equivalent of a repo in the US, and vice versa). One day later, on Wednesday, the PBOC injected another 200 billion in net liquidity: the biggest two-day liquidity injection since January.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet despite the significant 2-day liquidity injection on part with the Fed’s own “Not QE” which is injecting no less than $60BN in new reserves into the economy every month, signs in China’s money markets pointed to expectations of continued liquidity tightness in the financial system. The cost of one-year interest rate swaps, a measure of traders’ expectations of liquidity tightness, climbed 2 basis points to 2.80%, the highest since late May, while the overnight repurchase rate climbed 11 bps to its highest level since July.

    So why was this “strong” indication by Beijing that it would match the Fed’s own liquidity injections met with a collective shrug by the market? Because, similar to America’s repocalypse in September,  it came just before an Oct. 24 deadline for companies to pay tax, which traditionally increases the demand for cash and tightens liquidity.

    “It’s said to be hard to borrow money in the market this morning mainly due to the coming tax submission which was postponed to this Thursday”, said Zhaopeng Xing, markets economist at ANZ Bank China. Xing said he expected tightness in money market to continue this week.

    In other words, despite hopes (and in some cases, prayers) that the PBOC will finally ease aggressively to stimulate Chinese, and global growth and capital markets, China’s credit impulse is set for another sharp drop…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … now that it has become very clear that at least until the 2020 US election, China refuses to aggressively ease, boosting the global and US economy in the process, even if it means its own economy is set to suffer more. The good news: at least Xi Jinping can blame ‘trade war’ for the upcoming lowest Chinese GDP print on record, even if by now everyone knows that trade war is China’s least worry.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 22:47

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • Russia Says 500 Terrorists Have Escaped N.Syria; US Envoy Downplays It At "Very Few"
    Russia Says 500 Terrorists Have Escaped N.Syria; US Envoy Downplays It At “Very Few”

    According to Russian official statements which followed marathon talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday, some 500 ISIS terrorists and dangerous jihadists have escaped prisons in northern Syria since Turkey commenced its military incursion on Oct. 9.

    Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday that “Moscow estimated that up to 500 people, including Islamist fighters, had escaped from captivity in northern Syria after their guards left their posts.” Shoigu added that measures were being taken for Russian and Syrian forces to capture them. 

    Washington also confirmed Tuesday that ISIS terrorists have escaped; however, a top State Department official cited only “dozens” freed. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Perhaps shielding the White House from further criticism over the matter, special representative for Syria, James Jeffrey, testified before the Senate when asked how many “hardened” Islamic State fighters had gone free: “We don’t have high numbers but it was very few so far… for the moment very few.”

    “I would say dozens at this point,” Jeffrey told the hearing. The top White House appointed envoy added that there’s no plan to recapture them, and additionally that 10,000 still remain under Kurdish supervision.

    Within days of the start of Turkey’s operation against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, SDF leaders announced they couldn’t possibly provide adequate security to guard ISIS prisoners while simultaneously fighting off the Turks and their invading proxies. 

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

    Multiple reports have since detailed large-scale prison breaks, which suggests the Russian figure of 500 escaped is more accurate over and against the US designating “dozens”. 

    Meanwhile, just after agreeing to a deal with Russia on Tuesday, Erdogan claimed the US “has not completely fulfilled its promises in Syria,” which will require Turkey to “take the necessary steps”. He added: “If we make compromises we would open the way for the terrorist organisation,” according to NTV. 

    Turkish media is hailing the Turkey-Russia deal as “a better-than-expected outcome” for Erdogan: 

    According to the agreement, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia will withdraw to beyond 30 kilometres (19 miles) from the Turkish border, and leave the towns of Tel Rifaat and Manbij.

    Russia and Turkey will hold joint patrols in a 10-kilometre-deep area to the east and west of the ground covered by Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring.

    Russia is expected to send additional troop reinforcements to the region as a result of the deal. 

    Defense Minister Shoigu said, “As for additional troops, we naturally believe… that additional equipment will be needed for patrolling since the border is rather extensive and the patrolling should be serious and substantial so that we could avert any serious incidents.” 

    US media pundits as well as hawkish Congressional leaders who oppose the US draw down in Syria have pushed the dubious claim that Assad and Russia coming back into eventual control of of northeast Syria will only result in a resurgent Islamic State. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 22:25

    Tags
    Politics

  • How Democrats Became The Party Of Monopoly And Corruption
    How Democrats Became The Party Of Monopoly And Corruption

    Authored by Matt Stoller via Vice.com,

    The following is an excerpt from Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.

    In 1985, the Dow Jones average jumped 27.66 percent. Making money in stocks, as a journalist put it, “was easy.” With lower interest rates, low inflation, and “takeover fever,” investors could throw a dart at a list of stocks and profit.

    The next year was also very good. The average gain of a Big Board stock in 1986 was 14 percent, with equity market indexes closing at a record high.

    For the top performers, the amounts of money involved were staggering.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In 1987, Michael Milken awarded himself $550 million in compensation. In New York City, spending by bankers—a million dollars for curtains for a Fifth Avenue apartment, a thousand dollars for a vase of precious roses for a party—was obscene. A major financier announced in the Hamptons one night that “if you have less than 750 million, you have no hedge against inflation.” In Paris, a jeweler “dazzled his society guests when topless models displayed the merchandise between courses.” In west Los Angeles, the average price of a house in Bel Air rose to $4.6 million. There was so much money it was nicknamed “green smog.”

    Ambitious men now wanted to change the world through finance. Bruce Wasserstein had been a “Nader’s Raider” consumer advocate; he now worked at First Boston as one of the most successful mergers and acquisitions bankers of the 1980s. Michael Lewis wrote his best-seller Liar’s Poker as a warning of what unfettered greed in finance meant, but instead of learning the lesson, students deluged him with letters asking if he “had any other secrets to share about Wall Street.” To them, the book was a “how-to manual.”

    Finance was the center, but its power reached outward everywhere. The stock market was minting millionaires in a collection of formerly sleepy towns in California. Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose in the 1960s had been covered with “apricot, cherry and plum orchards,” and young people there often took summer jobs at local canneries. Immediately after Reagan’s election, in December of 1980, Apple Computer went public, instantly creating 300 millionaires, and raising more money in the stock market than any company since Ford Motor had in its initial public offering of shares in 1956. A young Steve Jobs was instantly worth $217 million.

    Meanwhile, the family farmer had lots of people who said they were friends at election time – even the glamorous music industry put on a giant “Farm Aid” concert in 1985 to raise money for bankrupt growers. But there was no populist leader like Congressman Wright Patman had been during the New Deal in the Democratic Party anymore. On the contrary, “new” Democrats like Dale Bumpers and Bill Clinton of Arkansas worked to rid their state of the usury caps meant to protect the “plain people” from the banker and financier. And the main contender for the Democratic nomination in 1988, the handsome Gary Hart, with his flowing—and carefully blow-dried—chestnut brown hair, spoke a lot about “sunrise” industries like semiconductors and high-tech, but had little in his vision incorporating the family farm.

    It wasn’t just the family farmer who suffered. On the South Side of Chicago, U.S. Steel, having started mass layoffs in 1979, continued into the next decade, laying off more than 6,000 workers in that community alone. Youngstown, Johnson, Gary—all the old industrial cities were going, in the words of the writer Studs Terkel, from “Steel Town” to “Ghost Town.” And the headlines kept on coming. John Deere idled 1,500 workers, GE’s turbine division cut 1,500 jobs, AT&T laid off 2,900 in its Shreveport plant, Eastern Air Lines fired 1,010 flight attendants, and docked pay by 20 percent. “You keep saying it can’t get worse, but it does,” said a United Autoworker member.

    And all the time, whether in farm country or steel country, the closed independent shop and the collapsed bank were as much monuments to the new political order as the sprouting number of Walmarts and the blizzard of junk-mail credit cards from Citibank. As Terkel put it, “In the thirties, an Administration recognized a need and lent a hand. Today, an Administration recognizes an image and lends a smile.”

    Regional inequality widened, as airlines cut routes to rural, small, and even medium-sized cities. So did income inequality, the emptying farm towns, the hollowing of manufacturing as executives began searching for any way to be in any business but one that made things in America. It wasn’t just the smog and the poverty, the consumerism, the debt, and the shop-till-you-drop ethos. It was the profound hopelessness.

    Within academic and political institutions, Americans were taught to believe their longing for freedom was immoral. Power was re-centralizing on Wall Street, in corporate monopolies, in shopping malls, in the way they paid for the new consumer goods made abroad, in where they worked and shopped. Yet policymakers, reading from the scripts prepared by Chicago School of Economics “experts,” spoke of these changes as natural, “scientific,” a result of consumer preferences, not the concentration of power.

    By the time of the 1992 election, there was a sullen mood among the voters, similar to that of 1974. “People are outraged at what is going on in Washington. Part of it had to do with pay raises, part of it has to do with banks and S&Ls and other things that are affecting my life as a voter,” said a pollster. That year, billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran the strongest third-party challenge in American history, capitalizing on anger among white working-class voters, the Democrats who had switched over to Reagan in the 1980s. He did so by pledging straightforward protectionism for U.S. industry, attacking the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and political corruption. Despite a bizarre campaign in which he withdrew and then reentered the race, Perot did so well he shattered the Republican coalition, helping throw the election to the Democrats. There would be one last opportunity for the Democrats to rebuild their New Deal coalition of working-class voters.

    The winner of the election, Bill Clinton, looked like he might do so. He had run a populist campaign using the slogan “Putting People First.” He attacked the failed economic theory of Reagan, criticized tax cuts for the rich and factory closings, and pledged to protect Americans from foreign and domestic threats. “For too long, those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft,” Clinton said. “And those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.” His campaign’s internal slogan was “It’s the economy, stupid,” and the 1992 Democratic platform used the word “revolution” 14 times.

    As a candidate, Clinton’s Democratic platform called for a “Revolution of 1992,” capturing the anger of the moment. But the platform was written by centrist Democratic Leadership Council boss Al From, and for the first time since 1880 there was no mention of antitrust or corporate power, despite a decade with the worst financial manipulation America had seen since the 1920s. This revolution would be against government, in government, around government. In 1993, a book came out on lobbying in Washington. Wayne Thevenot, a Clinton donor, laid out the new theme of the modern Democratic Party: “I gave up the idea of changing the world. I set out to get rich.”

    Like Reagan, Clinton went after restrictions on banking. Reagan sought to free restrictions on finance by allowing banks and non-banks to enter new lines of business. Clinton continued this policy, but over the course of his eight years attacked restrictions on banks themselves. In 1994, the Clinton administration and a Democratic Congress passed the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which allowed banks to open up branches across state lines. Clinton appointed Robert Rubin as his treasury secretary, super-lawyer Eugene Ludwig to run the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and reappointed Alan Greenspan as the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

    All three men worked hard through regulatory rulemaking to allow unfettered trading in derivatives, to break down the New Deal restrictions prohibiting commercial banks from entering the trading business, and to let banks take more risks with less of a cushion. Citigroup finally got an insurance arm, merging with financial conglomerate Travelers Group, approved by Greenspan, who granted the authority for the acquisition under the Bank Holding Company Act. In 1999, Clinton and a now-Republican Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which fully repealed the Glass-Steagall Act that had shattered the Houses of J.P. Morgan and Andrew Mellon. The very last bill Clinton signed was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which removed public rules limiting the use of exotic gambling instruments known as derivatives by now-enormous banks.

    Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which he touted as “truly revolutionary legislation,” and this began the process of reconsolidating the old AT&T as the “Baby Bells” merged. At the signing ceremony, actress Lily Tomlin reprised her role as a Ma Bell operator. Huge pieces of the AT&T network came back together, as Baby Bells merged from seven to three. Clear Channel grew from 40 radio stations to 1,240. In 1996, the Communications Decency Act was signed, with Section 230 of the Act protecting certain internet businesses from being liable for wrongdoing that occurred on their platform. While not well understood at the time, Section 230 was one policy lever that would enable a powerful set of internet monopolies to emerge in the next decade.

    Clinton also sped up the corporate takeover of rural America by allowing a merger wave in farm country. Food companies had always had some power in America, but before the Reagan era, big agribusinesses were confined to one or two stages of the food system. In the 1990s, the agricultural sector consolidated under a small number of sprawling conglomerates that organized the entire supply chain. Cargill, an agricultural conglomerate that was the largest privately owned company in America, embarked on a series of mergers and joint ventures, buying the grain-trading operations of its rival, Continental Grain Inc., as well as Azko Salt, thus becoming one of the largest salt production and marketing operations in the world.

    Monsanto consolidated the specialty chemicals and seed markets, buying up DeKalb Genetics and cotton-seed maker Delta & Pine Land. ConAgra, marketing itself as selling at every link of the supply chain from “farm gate to dinner plate,” bought International Home Foods (the producer of Chef Boyardee pasta and Gulden’s mustard), Knott’s Berry Farm Foods, Gilroy Foods, Hester Industries, and Signature Foods. As William Heffernan, a rural sociologist at the University of Missouri, put it in 1999, a host of formal and informal alliances such as joint ventures, partnerships, contracts, agreements, and side agreements ended up concentrating power even further into “clusters of firms.” He identified three such clusters—Cargill/Monsanto, ConAgra, and Novartis/ADM—as controlling the global food supply.

    The increase in power of these trading corporations meant that profit would increasingly flow to middlemen, not farmers themselves. Montana senator Conrad Burns complained his state’s farmers were “getting less for our products on the farm now than we did during the Great Depression.” The Montana state legislature passed a resolution demanding vigorous antitrust investigations into the meatpacking, grain-handling, and food retail industries, and the state farmer’s union asked for a special unit at the Department of Justice to review proposed agricultural mergers. There was so little interest in the Clinton antitrust division that when Burns held a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on concentration in the agricultural sector, the assistant attorney general for antitrust, Joel Klein, didn’t bother to show up. “Their failure to be here to explain their policies to rural America,” said Burns, “speaks volumes about what their real agenda is.”

    In the Reagan era, Walmart had already become the most important chain store in America, surpassing the importance of A&P at the height of its power. But it was during the Clinton administration that the company became a trading giant. First, the corporation jumped in size, replacing the auto giant GM as the top private employer in America, growing to 825,000 employees in 1998 while planting a store in every state. The end of antitrust enforcement in the retail space meant that Walmart could wield its buying power to restructure swaths of industries and companies, from pickle producers to Procter & Gamble. Clinton allowed Walmart to reorder world trade itself. Even in the mid-1990s, only a small percentage of its products were made abroad. But the passage of NAFTA—which eliminated tariffs on Mexican imports—as well as Clinton’s embrace of Chinese imports, allowed Walmart to force its suppliers to produce where labor and environmental costs were lowest. From 1992 to 2000, America’s trade deficit with China jumped from $18 billion to $84 billion, while it went from a small trade surplus to a $25 billion trade deficit with Mexico. And Walmart led the way. By 2003, consulting firm Retail Forward estimated more than half of Walmart merchandise was made abroad.

    Clinton administration officials were proud of Walmart, and this new generation of American trading monopolies, dubbing them part of a wondrous “New Economy” underpinned by information technology. “And if you think about what this new economy means,” said Clinton deputy treasury secretary Larry Summers in 1998 at a conference for investment bankers focusing on high-tech, “whether it is AIG in insurance, McDonald’s in fast-food, Walmart in retailing, Microsoft in software, Harvard University in education, CNN in television news—the leading enterprises are American.”

    It was also under Clinton that the last bastion of the New Deal coalition—a congressional majority held by the Democrats since the late 1940s—fell apart as the last few holdout southern Democrats were finally driven from office or switched to the Republican Party. And it was under Clinton that the language of politics shifted from that of equity, justice, and potholes to the finance-speak of redistribution, growth and investment, and infrastructure decay.

    The Democratic Party embraced not just the tactics, but the ideology of the Chicago School. As one memo from Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors put it, “Large size is not the same as monopoly power. For example, an ice cream vendor at the beach on a hot day probably has more market power than many multi-billion-dollar companies in competitive industries.”

    • During the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations, there were 85,064 mergers valued at $3.5 trillion.

    • Under just seven years of Clinton, there were 166,310 deals valued at $9.8 trillion.

    This merger wave was larger than that of the Reagan era, and larger even than any since the turn of the twentieth century, when the original trusts were created. Hotels, hospitals, banks, investment banks, defense contractors, technology, oil—everything was merging.

    The Clinton administration organized this new concentrated American economy through regulatory appointments and through non-enforcement of antitrust laws. Sometimes it even seemed they had put antitrust enforcement itself up for sale. In 1996, Thomson Corporation bought West Publishing, creating a monopoly in digital access to court opinions and legal publishing; the owner of West had given a half a million dollars to the Democratic Party and personally lobbied Clinton to allow the deal. The DOJ even approved the $81 billion Exxon and Mobil merger, restoring a chunk of the Rockefeller empire.

    Clinton advisor James Carville very early on in Clinton’s first term noted what was happening.

    “I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter,” he said.

    “But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.”

    Toward the end of Clinton’s second term, with a transcendent stock market, bars in the United States began switching their television sets from sports scores to CNBC, to watch the trading in real time.

    In the 1990s, it wouldn’t be Herbert Hoover overseeing a bubble, it would be a Democrat.

    * * *

    Finally, Matt pointed out on Twitter that:  “This chapter is about Clinton. But there are two chapters before about how Reagan facilitated the merger boom of the 1980s. Our problems came through both parties. Both. That is crystal clear.“


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 22:05

    Tags
    Politics
    Business Finance

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 22

Today’s News 22nd October 2019

  • Hate Crimes Rising Sharply In England & Wales
    Hate Crimes Rising Sharply In England & Wales

    Hate crimes in England and Wales have reached record levels.

    According to the Home Office, there were 103,379 hate crimes in the 12 months to March this year, an increase of 10 percent on 2017/18. While increases in hate crime over the last five years have been mainly driven by improvements in crime recording, Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes that the Home Office has observed spikes in incidents following events such as the EU Referendum and the terrorist attacks in 2017.

    Infographic: Hate crimes rising sharply in England and Wales | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    When looking at the motivating factors behind these crimes, race is by far the most common – involved in 76 percent of offences. Although only accounting for 2 percent, crimes against transgender people rose dramatically in the last year, seeing a jump of 37 percent – the largest of the recorded factors. All types recorded an increase, and ‘sexual orientation’ had the second-largest proportional increase, at 25 percent.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 02:45

    Tags
    Social Issues
    Law Crime
    War Conflict

  • By Blocking Boris, Bercow Bins Any Real Brexit
    By Blocking Boris, Bercow Bins Any Real Brexit

    Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

    House of Commons Speaker John Bercow denied Boris Johnson’s government a meaningful vote on his EU Withdrawal Treaty on Monday after allowing Oliver Letwin to table an amendment designed to force the Government to withdraw it on Saturday.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That amendment passed and the vote was withdrawn. And the question now is what’s next?

    The better question is why? Why did they do this when it raises the probability of a No-Deal Brexit given the ‘no extension’ rhetoric coming from the EU?

    The answer should be self-evident. The EU will happily grant an extension if the right conditions are in place. And those conditions are simply anything that continues to pave the path towards overturning the 2016 Brexit Referendum vote.

    The EU agreed to Boris Johnson’s deal last week because it was the closest thing to a perfect deal for them they would get in a reasonable time frame. The EU want a deal because it brings more certainty to the financial and investment situation across the continent.

    What I wrote for Money and Markets on Friday still holds in my opinion:

    The EU really thought they had this thing stitched up, as the Brits would say. But the war of attrition they waged against Brexiteers worked against them. Public opinion in the U.K. has hardened around a “No Deal” option and Nigel Farage’s sniping at the Tories’ mishandling of Brexit has been incredibly effective.

    I have little doubt that this is what I or Nigel Farage would consider a good deal. In fact, it’s a terrible treaty that sees the U.K. give up most of its leverage in return for very few guarantees.

    But it was a deal that was politically possible given the circumstances. And the movement by Brussels at the last minute is your clue that economic conditions on the European continent are far worse than they are letting on.

    I’ve been banging on about this for months, Germany’s economy is crashing. As that continued and the domestic political pressure mounts on Angela Merkel, the leverage was rising on the U.K.’s side of the negotiations.

    And since Johnson has done the politically unthinkable, get a deal from the EU, his opponents in Parliament are now trying to ensure that whatever happens next he will pay a terrible price politically for it.

    The longer the uncertainty goes on the more likely it will be that Europe will enter the terminal phase of its brewing sovereign debt crisis. Markets are nearly paralyzed by Brexit at this point.

    But we’re beginning to see the effects of Brexit fatigue on bond yields. The mother of safe-haven trades has waned in intensity now that the central banks have come in with new QE and liquidity guarantees.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Is this the beginning of the end of the massive bull market into any first-world sovereign debt? Similar technical reversals are in play all across European Bond yields.

    So, something is breaking. It may be more that just Deutsche Bank.

    So back to Bercow, Letwin and Brexit.

    Bercow’s refusal to allow a vote on Parliamentary approval of the Withdrawal Agreement is a way to ensure that Parliament can attach amendments to the bill against the government’s wishes.

    It’s not like Bercow hasn’t done this before. At every turn he’s interpreted the rule book to suit the agenda of those that want Brexit stopped at any cost.

    The Guardian has a good rundown on this because, of course, they’ve been made privy to the Remainer plan to stop Brexit.

    And the plan now is for Labour to work with Northern Ireland’s DUP to form an alliance against Johnson’s deal and work towards a Second Referendum.

    Because that is what the price of Johnson’s deal will be to get a vote on the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through Parliament both a Second Referendum and the addition of the Customs Union.

    Any attempt to get a customs union added to Johnson’s deal would probably need to involve former Tory MPs as well as the DUP. A source close to the group of 21 former Tories suggested they might be more interested in the deal being amended to make sure the UK does not crash out on no-deal terms. Most in the group are also keen to make a deal work rather than opt for a second referendum.

    However, speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show,{Labour Brexit Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir} Starmer said he believes a second referendum was still possible. He also suggested Labour could vote for Johnson’s deal if a second referendum was added to the withdrawal agreement bill, despite the party’s fundamental objections to the terms of the UK’s proposed departure from the EU.

    Keir Starmer can live with this deal, don’t kid yourself. What he wants, however, is to stop Brexit entirely and humiliate the Tories in the process. We have moved far beyond the appearance of doing the right thing for the British people and moved entirely into cynical machinations to thwart Brexit.

    From the Guardian here’s the current Flowchart (before Bercow’s ruling):

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Everything on the left-hand side is moot. It is the right side that is now in play.

    Note how everything ends with 2nd referendum or an even worse version of BRINO — Brexit in Name Only.

    This is why Guy Verhofstadt and the Brexit Steering Committee won’t recommend the Treaty for a vote to the European Parliament until next week. They are banking on events falling into place that leads us right back to the U.K. staying in the EU.

    So, today, Johnson will put forth the bill. Bercow will allow a hundred and forty-seven Remain amendments. Johnson will likely pull the bill from a vote because it will be unacceptable.

    The EU will grant an extension after that just as The Guardian suggests and then Johnson will be in hot water next week as Parliament, under Bercow, will likely seek to remove him from office and install a last-minute caretaker government to ensure a second referendum of BRINO vs. Remain are the only options.

    The Tories that held their noses to get Brexit done and back Boris’ rotten treaty will have betrayed Northern Ireland and their voters for nothing.

    Because there will be no General Election until the threat of Brexit is off the table in any meaningful way. This is purely a power play at this point and there is little anyone in the U.K. can do about it as every trick available has and will be used to stop it.

    I said this a month ago, Brexit has devolved into random acts of vandalism. And I feel it’s quite clear that most commentators on this process are simply not cynical enough to understand the depth of that statement.

    These people are full of envy and despite. They hate having lost the vote. They hate having to implement it. They hate the people for putting them in this position in the first place.

    And their threats are nothing more than statements of their allegiance to the EU first and everyone else second.

    Because if their allegiance was to the U.K. first they would back an election. They would trust the people to make the choice. But they won’t do that.

    Their play now is to throw caution to the wind about what happens after the next General Election. It doesn’t matter that the people hate them. The new treaty or any one cooked up by a caretaker government will have no escape clause.

    A parliament in disgrace, a government neutered by over-reaching courts, and a treaty that leaves the U.K. in Zombieland neither free nor prosperous is what the next government will have to contend with with or without a second referendum.

    And even if that government is a coalition between Johnson’s Tories and Farage’s Brexit Party, there won’t be any good will between them to present a unified front to the EU since Johnson’s whole Brexit strategy was to deliver BRINO while neutering the challenge Farage represents.

    Party before country. Politics before the people. That’s the true story of Brexit.

    *  *  *

    Join my Patreon if you want help navigating these chaotic times. Install the Brave Browser to earn crypto, retain some privacy, support your favorite creators and suck money away from the Google Vacuum.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/22/2019 – 02:00

    Tags
    Politics

  • Is Trump Ushering In A 'Financially-Responsible Empire'?
    Is Trump Ushering In A ‘Financially-Responsible Empire’?

    Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    It is nice to finally have a US President who is not a career politician. There is some truth to the Republican/Libertarian trope that lifelong politicians who know nothing but politics are perhaps not the best people to be making decisions on the military, medicine or education as they don’t know about life beyond getting reelected and “working” with lobbyists. Trump’s business background has lead him to making a major policy change that the Mainstream Media has surprisingly ignored that could actually be very good for America’s future.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If we remember back to Trump’s presidential campaign, he rather brazenly promised that he would build The Wall and make the Mexicans somehow “pay for it”. Trump later claimed that through renegotiating trade deals (NAFTA) he ultimately fulfilled his promise, although some would debate this. The interesting thing about this moment in Trump history is that he demonstrated a very different, business oriented, way of thinking that wouldn’t have come from other Republicans/Democrats in Washington.

    Candidate Trump was also very vocal on NATO spending and the spending of taxpayer money on the US’s many wars of luxury. President Trump hasn’t ended the Military Industrial Complex but he has been forcing NATO members to pay their dues, which are in the realm of tens of billions of dollars.

    This is a much more “realist” perception of NATO by Trump. Officially the organization is a group of allies for self-defense but as we know factually it works like means for the US colonization of Europe. The US military does almost all the work, they project their bases onto the Europeans (never the other way around) and with the recent exception of Turkey all NATO members essentially bow down to any demands made by Washington, however in the past this has come at a price. Empire isn’t cheap and we all know who ultimately paid for the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WWII – US taxpayers. The US has financed the farce of NATO, but Trump wants to change this.

    Now breaking with over half a century of a particular tradition Trump is allowing 3000 US troops to go to Saudi Arabia on the Saudi’s dime. Now Trump is offering to provide NATO defense to vassals and “make them pay for it”. This profit-driven policy is a radical departure from the status quo and to be honest is a much wiser wiser way of doing things in the long term with one huge exception depending on your view.

    If US forces are to be used under the influence of “market demands” that could really put a dent into the seemingly endless national debt. The US has by far the biggest most expensive military in the world and Washington’s vassals at this point have no other choice but to pay the master for protection, making maintaining US military dominance much cheaper. The only disadvantage (depending on your view) is that if Trump pushes for profitability as a key factor in military decisions/policy then we will never be able have another Vietnam.

    There is no way the South Vietnamese could have afforded to pay for US security. Their resources would have run out in a matter of weeks or days. If Trump wants the US to act on a “no money no honey” policy then it makes intervention in a Vietnam-like scenario ultimately impossible. This is good for those of us who want a powerful but respectable America, but for the warhawks this is a nightmare. Financial viability as a key concern in military decisions could spell doom for the parties of war, at least while Trump or a like minded individual is in power.

    The Russians have also made a major shift in defense policy. The Soviet Union with less money and a distinct lack of the world’s reserve currency played by similar rules during the Cold War – we will throw money, men and resources at any conflict we see fit in order to ultimately win. But today’s Russia is different and when they entered Syria they made it clear to Assad that they are there to “help” and that Assad’s army is going to have to fight its own battles on its own manpower and resources.

    If Russia were to enter a long term expensive military conflict it could possibly sink the entire economy or eliminate for generations Moscow’s debt free status. Sending officially invited advisors and selling top-notch equipment – has no negative long term effects. Trump isn’t the only one who sees the value into playing geopolitics on a strict budget.

    This decision by Trump to send troops to defend Saudi Arabia at cost or even for profit could have a much grander resonance than it would seem at first. And hopefully, finally, the burden of Empire can be moved from the shoulders of US taxpayers so that they can enjoy the fruits of that which they have financed for decades.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 23:45

    Tags
    Politics
    War Conflict

  • Mapping The World's Longest Non-Stop Flights
    Mapping The World’s Longest Non-Stop Flights

    Over the weekend, Qantas conducted a research flight to test human limits on ultra-long haul commercial services.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Statista’s Niall McCarthy details  that the test flight involved a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner flying from New York to Sydney with 50 passengers onboard and it was expected to complete the 10,200-mile journey in 19-and-a-half hours.

    If the research proves successful, Qantas hopes to start operating direct flights from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to New York and London by 2022.

    Today, a Singapore Airlines flight connecting the city-state with Newark International Airport is the longest commercial flight worldwide, both in terms of distance and time. The journey is a mammoth 16,700 kilometers and lasts just under 19 hours. The route was in operation before with a four-engine A340-500 but it was eventually axed because it became unprofitable amid rising fuel prices.

    It was eventually relaunched with a new fuel-efficient and ultra-long range Airbus A350-900. There are many ways of measuring the world’s longest flights with factors such as strong head winds having a major impact on the length of time an aircraft stays airborne. As a result, claims about the longest commercial flights have always proven controversial.

    Infographic: The World's Longest Non-Stop Flights | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The infographic above provides an overview of the longest flights and it shows how the new Singapore Airlines route is undisputedly the world’s longest.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 23:25

  • Will The Democratic Party Exist After 2020 Election?
    Will The Democratic Party Exist After 2020 Election?

    Authored by Renee Parsons via Off-Guardian.org,

    Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to the surface as never before.

    If so, those revelations are long overdue.

    It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Today’s Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago. Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous strategy.

    Desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the CIA – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government.

    It should not be necessary to say but in today’s hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.

    As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies.

    They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment campaign.

    It may be that whistleblower Ed Snowden’s revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that Trump was being ‘really dumb” in daring to question Intel’s faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election.

    “Let me tell you. You take on the intelligence community = they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

    Inescapably, Schumer was suggesting  that the Congress has no oversight, that there is no accountability and that the US has lost its democratic roots when a newly elected President does not have the authority to question or publicly disagree with any of the Intel agencies.

    Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel’s unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.

    The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power, financial and influence agenda that goes far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.

    Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a July, 2018 summit meeting between Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel veterans and its cronies: 

    “Trump sides with Putin over US Intelligence” – CNN

    “Did Trump Commit Treason at Putin Meeting?” – Newsweek, and

    “Trump Slammed Over Disgrace, Disgusting Press Conference with Putin” – Newsweek.

    Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia.

    And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the American public safe.

    There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to ‘know’ was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that?

    As a result of  the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham appear hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama’s Oval Office.

    Barr’s earlier comment before the Senate that “spying did occur’ and that ‘it’s a big deal’ when an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.

    With the stark realization that none of the DNC’s favored top tier candidates has the mojo to go the distance, the Democrats have now focused on a July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump allegedly ‘pressured’ Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden’s relationship with Burisma, the country’s largest natural gas provider.

    At issue is any hanky panky involving Burisma payments to Rosemont Seneca Partners, an equity firm owned by Joe’s errant son, Hunter, who served on Burisma’s Board for a modest $50,000 a month.

    Zelenskyy, who defeated the US-endorsed incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory, speaks Russian, was elected to clean up corruption and end the conflict in eastern Ukraine.  The war in the Donbass began as a result of the US State Department’s role in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

    Trump’s first priority on July 25th was Crowd Strike, a cybersecurity firm with links to the HRC campaign which was hired by the DNC to investigate Russian hacking of its server. 

    The Dems have reason to be concerned since it is worth contemplating why the FBI did not legally mandate that the DNC turn its server over to them for an official Federal forensic inspection. 

    One can only speculate…those chickens may be coming home to roost.

    Days after an anonymous whistleblower (not to be confused with a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden) later identified as a CIA analyst with a professional history linked to Joe Biden, publicly released a Complaint against Trump. 

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the initiation of an ambiguous Impeachment Inquiry campaign with little specificity about the process.  The Complaint is suspect since it reads more like a professionally prepared Affidavit and the Dems consider Pelosi’s statement as sufficient to initiate a formal process that fails to follow the time-honored path of a full House vote predicating a legitimate impeachment inquiry on to the Judiciary Committee.

    Of special interest is how the process to date is playing out with the House Intelligence Committee in a key role conducting what amounts to clandestine meetings, taking depositions and witness statements behind closed doors with a still secret unidentified whistleblower’s identity and voice obscured from Republican members of the Intel Committee and a witness testifying without being formally sworn in – all too eerily similar to East Germany.

    The pretense of shielding the thinly veiled CIA operative as a whistleblower from public exposure can only be seen as an overly-dramatic transparent performance as the Dems have never exhibited any concern about protecting real whistleblowers like Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling and others who were left to fend for themselves as the Obama Administration prosecuted more true, authentic whistleblowers than any other administration since the Espionage Act of 1917.

    As the paradigm shift takes its toll on the prevailing framework of reality and our decayed political institutions, (the FBI and DOJ come to mind as the Inspector General’s report is due at  week’s end), how much longer does the Democratic Party, which no longer serves a useful public purpose, deserve to exist?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 23:05

    Tags
    Politics

  • Nearly Half Of US Consumers Report Their Incomes Don't Cover Their Expenses
    Nearly Half Of US Consumers Report Their Incomes Don’t Cover Their Expenses

    Low-income consumers are struggling to make ends meet despite the “greatest economy ever,” and if a recession strikes or the employment cycle continues to decelerate — this could mean the average American with insurmountable debts will likely fall behind on their debt servicing payments, according to a UBS report, first reported by Bloomberg. 

    UBS analyst Matthew Mish wrote in a recent report that 44% of consumers don’t make enough money to cover their expenses.

    The new survey asked 2,100 respondents in the US about their current financial situation, at least 40% of the respondents said they experienced a credit problem, if that was a rejection of a credit card or a missing payment, or perhaps defaulting on a balance that was due, this was a 3 percentage-point increase from last year, the survey found. 

    Mish has written before that lower-income consumers have seen very little net worth improvement in the last decade. They’ve increased their debt burdens significantly through credit cards, auto loans, and student debt. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As the federal funds rate drops, consumers are being squeezed by record-high credit card rates.

    Given the high leverage of lower-income consumers, the next cyclical downshift in the consumer credit cycle could be much worse than the Dot Com bust, Mish noted in July.

    Mish writes in the current report that there are no signs, as of yet, of an imminent downturn in the consumer credit cycle. 

    The analyst wrote that the UBS indicator that determines if consumer credit is turning stood at .10 through late September. High scores of the index are often associated with deteriorating consumer health, in 2001 and 2007 recessions, the indicator was approximately .70.  

    Mish said in the last six months, only 17% of consumers reported an improvement in their financial well-being. 

    As we’ve noted in the last several months, successful transmission of weakness from a manufacturing recession has filtered into services and employment. This means that the economic slowdown in the US has already broadened, now affecting consumers, and will lead to waning consumer health in the late year — just in time for the holiday season. 

    “The lower-income cohort led the deterioration, suggesting the lower-tier consumer remains under disproportionate pressure,” Mish wrote.

    As the US economy cycles lower through 4Q, lower-income consumers are already coming under pressure. 

    Already, the percentage of student loans that are 90 days or more delinquent has jumped from a year ago. Auto loan delinquencies remain elevated from last year. 

    And it’s when the consumer shifts into a holding pattern, pulling back on all spending, that is when the broader economic downswing will be seen. A reminder, consumers account for 70% of US GDP.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 22:45

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • CJ Hopkins: The Putin-Nazis Are Coming (Again)
    CJ Hopkins: The Putin-Nazis Are Coming (Again)

    Authored (satirically) by CJ Hopkins vis The Unz Review,

    So, it looks like that’s it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have “hacked,” or “influenced,” or “meddled in” our democracy. Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up a last-minute military coup, it’s four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration camps, gigantic banners with the faces of Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public schools, National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death’s heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We probably should have seen this coming.

    That’s right, as I’m sure you are aware by now, president-in-exile Hillary Clinton has discovered Putin’s diabolical plot to steal the presidency from Elizabeth Warren, or Biden, or whichever establishment puppet makes it out of the Democratic primaries. Speaking to former Obama adviser and erstwhile partner at AKPD Message and Media David Plouffe, Clinton revealed how the godless Rooskies intend to subvert democracy this time:

    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.”

    She was referring, of course, to Tulsi Gabbard, sitting Democratic Member of Congress, decorated Major in the Army National Guard, and long shot 2020 presidential candidate. Apparently, Gabbard (who reliable anonymous sources in the Intelligence Community have confirmed is a member of some kind of treasonous, Samoan-Hindu, Assad-worshipping cult that wants to force everyone to practice yoga) has been undergoing Russian “grooming” at a compound in an undisclosed location that is probably in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, or on Sublevel 168 of Trump Tower.

    In any event, wherever Gabbard is being surreptitiously “groomed” (presumably by someone resembling Lotte Lenya in From Russia With Love), the plan (i.e., Putin’s plan) is to have her lose in the Democratic primaries, then run as a third-party “spoiler” candidate, stealing votes from Warren or Biden, exactly as Jill Stein (who, according to Clinton, is also “totally a Russian asset”) stole them from Clinton back in 2016, allowing Putin to install Donald Trump (who, according to Clinton, is still being blackmailed by the FSB with that “kompromat” pee-tape) in the White House, where she so clearly belongs.

    Clinton’s comments came on the heels of a preparatory smear-piece in The New York Times, What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?, which reported at length on how Gabbard has been “injecting chaos” into the Democratic primaries. Professional “disinformation experts” supplied The Times with convincing evidence (i.e., unfounded hearsay and innuendo) of “suspicious activity” surrounding Gabbard’s campaign. Former Clinton-aide Laura Rosenberger (who also just happens to be the Director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, “a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group” comprised of former Intelligence Community and U.S. State Department officials, and publisher of the Hamilton 68 dashboard) “sees Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division.”

    The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times, and the rest of the corporate media would like you to mentally associate her with.

    Richard Spencer, David Duke, Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Tucker Carlson, and so on. Neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer. 4chan, where, according to The New York Times, neo-Nazis like to “call her Mommy.”

    In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism, Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard’s guilt-by-association with the people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed that Gabbard has “the seal of approval” within goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy (yes, the one from the previous paragraph) conducted an “independent analysis” which confirmed that RT (“the Kremlin-backed news agency”) had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western corporate media (which isn’t backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased and independent, despite the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least one CIA-affiliated oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that Gabbard’s support from Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.

    “Clearly there’s something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers.”

    But it’s not just The New York Times, of course. No sooner had Clinton finished cackling than the corporate media launched into their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine, banging out story after television segment repeating the words “Gabbard” and “Russian asset.” I’ve singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for Hillary Clinton’s calculated smear job on Friday night. No, the old gal hasn’t lost her mind. She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times, as did every other establishment news source that breathlessly “reported” her neo-McCarthyite smears.

    As I noted in my previous essay, 2020 is for all the marbles, and it’s not just about who wins the election. No, it’s mostly about crushing the “populist” backlash against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy, smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment has to delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn … and any other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no difference) deviating from that ideology.

    • In Trump’s case, it’s his neo-nationalism.

    • In Sanders and Corbyn’s, it’s socialism (or at least some semblance of social democracy).

    • In Gabbard’s, it’s her opposition to the Corporatocracy’s ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the Middle East (and the rest of the entire planet), and their using the U.S. military to do it.

    Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it’s not their Putin-Nazism … it’s the challenge they represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization and globalization of everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as “Russian assets,” “anti-Semites,” “traitors,” “white supremacists,” “fascists,” “communists,” or some other type of “extremists.”

    Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is focusing attention on the motives and tactics of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in an essay last year, “the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible.” This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to give them hell as they finish off her candidacy and drive her out of office.

    Oh, and if you’re contemplating sending me an email explaining how these smear campaigns don’t work (or you spent the weekend laughing about how Hillary Clinton lost her mind and made an utter jackass of herself), maybe check in with Julian Assange, who is about to be extradited to America, tried for exposing U.S. war crimes, and then imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life.

    If you can’t get through to Julian at Belmarsh, you could ring up Katharine Viner at The Guardian, which has ruthlessly smeared Assange for years, and published outright lies about him, and is apparently doing very well financially.

    And, if Katharine is on holiday in Antigua or somewhere, or having tea with Hillary in the rooftop bar of the Hay-Adams Hotel, you could try Luke Harding (who not only writes and publishes propaganda for The Guardian, but who wrote a whole New York Times best-seller based on nothing but lies and smears). Or try Marty Baron, Dean Baquet, Paul Krugman, or even Rachel Maddow, or any of the other editors and journalists who have been covering the Putin-Nazi “Attack on America,” and keeping us apprised of who is and isn’t a Hitler-loving “Russian asset.”

    Ask them whether their smear machine is working… if you can get them off the phone with their brokers, or whoever is decorating their summer places in the Hamptons or out on Martha’s Vineyard.

    Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after Russiagate was exposed as an enormous hoax based on absolutely nothing, parroting this paranoid official narrative and calling people “Russian assets” on Twitter. Or never mind, just pay attention to what happens over the next twelve months. In terms of ridiculous official propaganda, spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass Putin-Nazi hysteria, it’s going to make the last three years look like the Propaganda Special Olympics.

    *  *  *

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 22:25

    Tags
    Politics

  • Pennsylvania School District Votes To Replace Locker Rooms With $2.4 Million Gender-Neutral Facilities
    Pennsylvania School District Votes To Replace Locker Rooms With $2.4 Million Gender-Neutral Facilities

    Gone are the days of boys fantasizing about sneaking into the girls locker room, at least in Eastern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 

    That’s because the Eastern Lancaster County School District voted this past week to create non-gender specific facilities instead of traditional gender-specific locker rooms, according to Fox 29. The policy was unanimously passed on the first student day of the 2019-2020 school year.

    The $2.4 million plan for Garden Spot High School will include four “zones” that hold a total of 48 changing rooms and 76 private showers. The showers can also double as changing rooms, since they will be private, making a total of 124 total changing rooms. 

    The Board commented: “This District policy states that multi-user locker rooms and restrooms will be separated based on biological sex. But the idea behind the policy is much deeper. We’ve worked hard to arrive at a solution that balances varied interests – which is why we’re systematically converting multi-user facilities into a series of single-user facilities.” 

    Starting this year, there are also 13 single-user restrooms being made available to students. 

    “ELANCO prides itself in not simply providing reasonable accommodations to those who need them, but going above and beyond to provide extraordinary accommodations for all its students,” the board continued. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The restrooms only mark a first step in a “much larger inclusivity initiative” that will include specified classrooms for teams to meet during competition, when they would normally meet in a locker room. We’re sure those classrooms will smell terrific the next day. 

    The rooms “will have entry points in public areas of schools so that any student, regardless of assigned sex and gender identity can access them.”

    Also, athletes will no longer be able to change in these rooms. The Board stated: “Because nobody will change in any classroom, including these team classrooms, both sexes can be present. This really helps, for instance, when we have a girls’ team coached by a male, or vice versa.”

    The initiative comes after backlash last year when the Board allowed a transgender boy to use the boys’ restroom and locker room during gym class. 

    The Board said: “To be absolutely clear, we seek to accommodate any student in need of an accommodation because we believe accommodations can help all students to thrive. We also want to preserve bodily privacy in spaces that exist to provide privacy from those with the opposite anatomy. Some might say it’s an impossible task to balance all those interests. But it is one we’re working to implement.” 

    The Board concluded: “While this involves a significant investment. It is a worthwhile one that will serve students, coaches and the school well for many years to come.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 22:05

    Tags
    Education

  • The New York Times Gets Neoclassicals, Austrians, And Schumpter Wrong…All In One Article
    The New York Times Gets Neoclassicals, Austrians, And Schumpter Wrong…All In One Article

    Authored by Joakim Book via The Mises Institute,

    Clarity is a virtue, and if overlooking critical nuances can mean readers end up more confused after reading one’s work, that’s not very useful, to put things mildly.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Earlier this month, Justin Fox at The New York Times made a splendid illustration of this blunder; his piece amounted to saying mostly unsubstantiated things about “the” state of economics while renouncing clarity in favor of confused concepts and histories. Fox reviews two books: NYT writer Binyamin Appelbaum ’s The Economist’s Hour and The Marginal Revolutionaries by long-term student of fin de siècle Vienna and University of Alabama historian Janek Wasserman. Having not yet finished Wasserman’s biography of the Austrian school and its early economists, I don’t know if the below inaccuracies stem from his misinterpretations of these authors or from errors in the discussed works themselves.

    Consider the following illustrative paragraph. Fox writes that the 1871 marginal revolution

    made Vienna a leading Continental outpost of the market-oriented ‘neoclassical’ economics that also became dominant in Britain and eventually the United States. But the Austrian school also had some unique properties. One was a fascination with entrepreneurs, expressed most famously in Joseph Schumpeter’s 1942 account of the ‘creative destruction’ of business failure and creation. Another was a skepticism of the mathematical tools used by neoclassical economists elsewhere. Most pronounced of all was a disdain for government management of the economy.

    Fox is right that late-19th century Vienna was a thriving hub of intellectual achievements in arts, culture, philosophy, legal theory as well as economic thought. Describing it as an “outpost of the market-oriented ‘neoclassical’ economics,” or believing that the neglected brands of emerging so-called Austrian Economists were calling the shots is quite a stretch.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Let’s unpack this a bit.

    Strike 1: The Austrian School as “Neoclassical”

    First, the vacuous and perilous term “neoclassical” economics is misused here — as in modern times when employed as a slur for any economic thinking that displeases the author. Thorstein Veblen is usually credited with having invented the term in 1899/1900, a pesky three decades after the marginal revolution. He specifically considered — and attacked — the economics of Alfred Marshall, professor of political economy in Cambridge between 1885 and 1908, whose textbook Principles of Economics was widely used in England. Tony Aspromourgos, the historian of economic thought, biographer of Adam Smith, and — full disclosure — my former professor at the University of Sydney, writes that early users of the term “all place[d] Marshall at the centre of a neoclassical economics.” If the term ever referred to anything concrete and specific, it was the economics of Marshall.

    Jaffé’s oft-cited article further separated Menger, Jevons and Walras from one another and clearly illustrated the modern mistake of lumping them together as co-originators of the Marginal Revolution: Menger refrained from using mathematical expositions; Menger’s conception of marginal unit is vastly different from Jevons and even moreso from Walras; Schumpeter singled out Walras as user of general equilibrium, in stark contrast to Jevons or Menger.

    Strike 2: Vienna as an Outpost of Market-Oriented, Anti-Government Ideas

    Any sweeping statement of the complicated and diverse intellectual environment of pre-WWI Vienna is going to miss its mark. Implying that it was somehow dominated by “market-oriented” economists is entirely incorrect. We can point to many distinguished intellectuals whose persuasions were rather the opposite: Otto Neurath, a frequent sparring partner to the actual-Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk in the halls of University of Vienna, whose ideas for socialized economies were shared widely among intellectuals. Indeed, Neurath was in charge of centrally planning the Bavarian socialist economy during its brief socialist rule in 1918-19; Hans Kelsen, the founder of legal positivism, the legal doctrine that traces validity of laws to correct governmental procedures regardless of content; Otto Bauer, the Austro-Marxist and socialist party secretary in the 1900s and 1910s whose bolshevist persuasions all but ensured an Austrian union with Moscow.

    For decades, the nickname for Austria’s finest city was “Red Vienna,” suggesting that perhaps the intellectual environment of these early Austrian economists was something other than “a disdain for government management.”

    Strike 3: Entrepreneurship and Schumpeter

    This association of entrepreneurs with Schumpeter is particularly dreadful. Fascination with entrepreneurs as drivers of economic change is indeed a signum of Austrian economics — a line of thinking that harks back through early generations of Austrians and even to Richard Cantillon. It preceded Schumpeter by decades, and continues today largely independent of Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction.”

    Schumpeter’s economics, whose national origin was Austria, is thoroughly Walrasian – following Walras’ general equilibrium methods, rather than Menger’s subjectivism. His entrepreneurship theories are not Austrian.

    Be Nuanced, Stop Fudging

    Piece by piece, Fox’s confusing paragraph has unraveled. Scrutinized properly, it makes very little sense. Throwing words together in an under-analyzed mish-mash don’t make them informative, let alone true.

    The final objection that might be laid against Fox’s version of market-loving economists’ dominance is precisely its pretend dominance. Pre-Keynesian Marshallian economics was briefly popular in England, and some select market practices that twentieth-century economists advanced have filtered through to policy-makers. But by and large, this threat of Rule-By-Economist seems largely imaginary.

    On political discussions ranging from rent control or tariffs and free trade to raising top marginal tax rates, economists of all political persuasions overwhelmingly line up on one side — with politicians, the intellectuals and actual real-world policies on the other. Meanwhile, several countries in the OECD are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve (stifling activity while raising less taxes than they could have). The distinguished Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, an 89-year-old economist who was put in charge of a committee in the 1990s to update and liberalize Sweden’s bloated public sector – and so has actually had some political influence – has campaigned for abolished rent control for over half a century. Without any success whatsoever.

    To pretend, against that background, that economists rule the political roost seems incredible. Fox should take note.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 21:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 21

Today’s News 21st October 2019

  • First Time Since 1934 – Hitler's "Mein Kampf" To Be Reprinted In France
    First Time Since 1934 – Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” To Be Reprinted In France

    Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio continues to pitch the idea that the global business cycle is headed for economic doom, sort of like what happened in the 1930s. Dalio warns of populism and nationalism spreading throughout the world and is most analogous to the years before World War II.

    History seldom repeats, but there are instances where it rhymes — and maybe Dalio is right about the direction the world is headed. 

    As the rise of nationalism and populism flourishes throughout Europe, several reports, mostly from French sources, say for the first time since 1934, a publisher in France will start selling “Mein Kampf” (“My Fight”), the book written by Adolf Hitler in 1925. 

    The book will be released to the public in France in 2020, will be accompanied by a critical edition written by fifteen French and German historians, reported Le Journal du Dimanche. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Initially, the reissue of “Mein Kampf,” was announced in 2015, but the news of it caused a tremendous uproar that plans for reissue were quickly shelved by publishing house, Fayard. “The Fayard publisher intends to carry out as planned the publication of “Mein Kampf “- which falls into the public domain in January 2016 – in a new translation by Olivier Mannoni that will be authoritative,” said the publisher in 2015.

    The book is “considered as one of the engines of Nazism,” is “struck with a kind of taboo because we are so afraid of the lies it contains that we refuse to talk about it,” Mannoni said in 2015.

    News of the reissue circulated Twitter like wildfire last week. Many users agreed that the new book could be a terrible idea. 

    Some users said the book is already available online. Amazon is selling several translations for under $20. 

    The book was banned in Germany for seven decades for its anti-Semitic text before it was reissued in 2016. 

    The rhythm of the 1930s is possibly getting louder, well, at least maybe in Dalio’s mind. 

    But there are similar trends of populism and nationalism gaining momentum in Europe and across the world at the moment — similar to what was seen in the 1930s when “Mein Kampf” circulated across Europe. 

    Today, like the 1930s, failed central banking across the world could be leading to the next global downturn. Failed monetary policy has produced the widest economic inequality between rich and poor on record, another reason for the rise of nationalism and populism. On top of it all, the threat of war in certain parts of the world is the highest ever.

    And with that being said, the last time “Mein Kampf” was printed in France, populism and nationalism were soaring, several years before World War II. Does all of this mean that the 2020s will be an extremely volatile period for the world?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 02:45

  • Brexit: Parliament Tethers Britain To A Failing Experiment
    Brexit: Parliament Tethers Britain To A Failing Experiment

    Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

    Europe is crumbling, & Britain’s elite desperately want to be part of the wreckage…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Brexit isn’t going to happen. Left or Right – Lexit or Rexit – it’s over. It’s time to make peace with that idea.

    Penned in by the absurd Benn Act, No Deal is off the table, which means Britain will be forced to either remain or accept a deal that’s Remain by another name.

    The Letwin Ammendment and Johnson’s unsigned extension request are just morbid theatre. Unneccasary nails in a well-sealed coffin.

    It’s all very Weekend at Bernies’ – A lame cast of characters, puppeteering Brexit’s corpse to keep up a tired joke that was never funny to begin with.

    Parliament has become an absurd pantomime, where a clown Prime Minister – his majority willfully destroyed – sets up straw men that the “opposition” bayonet with increasingly maniacal glee. No thought is given to policy or consequences, only increasing the tally of Boris Johnson’s parliamentary defeats.

    Labour, and the bedraggled, hysterical remainers in the Lib Dems/TIG/Green Party, have become nothing but contrarians – automatically gain-saying anything tabled by the government for the simple joy of humiliating the nation’s Court Jester in Chief.

    Corbyn has been so successfully gaslighted by his remain-heavy PLP he doesn’t even realise he’s betraying his life-long principles, his mentor Tony Benn, and entire swaths of the Labour’s Northern heartlands, who all voted to leave.

    When a general election does come, it will mean nothing.

    Labour will likely be destroyed as working-class voters either flock to the Brexit Party or simply collapse into the apathy of the voiceless, and stay home.

    If Labour scrapes together enough voters from Remain country in Scotland and London to claw their way to a small majority, well their socialist manifesto will be crippled by the EU’s austerity policy and restrictions on nationalisation.

    In either event, Corbyn will be replaced by a New Labour non-entity of little renown and less worth. The papers will declare socialism dead (again), and maybe clap Corbyn on the shoulder for doing “well, considering” and “changing the conversation”.

    We’ll be invited to celebrate the new (inevitably) female leader as a sign of “progress”, while society continues to slip backwards.

    Whether the hardcore Remainers get their “People’s Vote” or not, and whichever of the carousel of undesirables happens to be Prime Minister when it all eventually wraps up, Brexit is dead. Parliament killed it.

    This on-going, slow-burn sabotage is hard to watch – but it’s not what this article is about.

    What it’s about is a question. An important question. One that should weigh heavily on the shoulders of Remainers on the eve of their – for want of a better word – victory:

    Do we really want this? Does the EU, right now, really look like something we want to be a part of?

    Let’s run down the situation on The Continent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    PARIS, FRANCE – DECEMBER 2018 (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

    France is miserable, sick of austerity. Sick of spending cuts and falling standards and neo-liberal economics promising a trickle-down that never seems to come.

    In Paris – and many other French cities – the Yellow Vests are nearing their fiftieth straight week of protests, and don’t seem to be slowing down (Hopefully they plan something nice for their first birthday).

    People have lost eyes, hands, even lives. The Hong Kong protests – so long front-page news in the UK – have been a picnic in comparison.

    In Hungary, an elected President is held hostage by the bureaucracy of the EU. Whatever you think of Orban, he was democratically elected to enact the political promises he made during his campaign. That Brussels can sanction him, and threaten to remove Hungary’s voting rights, is perverse. Anti-democracy in the name of democracy.

    They say it’s about “protecting European values”, but is it?

    That’s pretty hard to believe, considering the situation elsewhere in Europe…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Spain will join France in the flames soon. They already sent thirteen politicians to prison for sedition.

    Take a moment to consider that – actual “sedition”.

    This comes after sending in riot police to break up a peaceful referendum. Spanish police beat voters, arrested protesters and destroyed ballot boxes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Spanish riot police teaching an old woman about European Values.

    Madrid has faced no punishment, or even criticism, for this. They – unlike Orban – have escaped any sanction or censure. Police attack Catalonian independence protests on the streets of Barcelona…and Brussels’ silence is deafening.

    (Imagine Russia had just jailed 13 opposition politicians for sedition. Imagine Maduro was blinding protestors with rubber bullets. The difference in coverage and attitude would be breathtaking.)

    What is the difference between Budapest and Paris? Or Moscow and Madrid?

    Well, Orban is anti-EU (as are the Gilets Jaunes). The governments of France and Spain are Pro EU, with a ferocity that fully justifies the capital P.

    Follow a pro-EU agenda of austerity, uncontrolled immigration and globalisation and you can blind as many protesters as you want.

    The harder you look, the more it seems “European values” is slang for “European power”.

    The talk of the EU Army bubbles away on the back-burner, whilst the European Parliament merrily votes through massive funding for “StratCom” programmes to “counter misinformation”.

    We hear about peace, but we don’t see it. We hear about prosperity, but we don’t feel it.

    Austerity is choking the birthplace of democracy to death, and its – again, for want of a better word – “leaders” are spending tax revenues on propaganda and the military.

    Is that going to help a single ordinary citizen out of poverty? Are these moves designed to make life fair, equal or easy for ordinary citizens? Or consolidate and enforce authority?

    Look at Europe. Really look at it. It’s burning. And yet Remainers sit amongst the flames and say everything’s fine.

    We are lectured on “European Values”, but that phrase has been meaningless for years, and every day edges closer and closer to full-on parody.

    Europe is a sinking ship the rats in Parliament refuse to leave.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/21/2019 – 02:00

    Tags
    Politics

  • The American Deep State Would Sooner Sacrifice The Republic Than Lose Again To Donald Trump
    The American Deep State Would Sooner Sacrifice The Republic Than Lose Again To Donald Trump

    Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    You’d really think the American people would have caught on by now. No sooner did Russiagate fizzle out like a wet firecracker did the Democrats, completely indifferent to the dire consequences, toss another incendiary into the public square. Sooner or later something has got to blow, and maybe it already did.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Americans experience the brutal whiplash of going from the Mueller probe to presidential impeachment in a matter of days, all pretensions of democratic procedure to guide the show trial have been tossed from the clown car. With the boot-licking media to back their every whim and fancy, the Democrats are dragging the Republic to the brink of destruction as they threaten to take down the 45th POTUS, and without a single witness in the dock.

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

    Last month, Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said the identity of the shady whistleblower who revealed second-hand details of a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be made public “very soon.” That claim looks set to be the fifth ‘Pinocchio’ awarded to Schiff in almost as many days.

    On Sunday, the truth-impaired Senator said the whistleblower at the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry might not testify in court over concerns about the individual’s safety. That pathetic excuse should incur the wrath of the mainstream media every bit as much as it has incurred the wrath of the Trump administration. Moreover, it cheapens the incalculable sacrifice that every whistleblower assumes when they attach their identities to explosive revelations; without their identity publicly known the claims do not carry the same weight. Unless the whistleblower is fully prepared to lose his career and risk jail time, much like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and numerous others, a cloud of doubt will forever hang over the claims, and even more so in the Ukrainegate affair since we are talking about nothing more than hearsay.

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

    Schiff’s notorious shiftiness didn’t end there. He actually cited Trump’s candidness in releasing the full transcript of the conversation as another reason as to why the ‘courageous’ whistleblower should enjoy full anonymity. This almost makes Trump himself appear as the whistleblower.

    “Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call,” Schiff said in an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation. In other words, Trump was doomed to be damned if he released the transcript or he didn’t.

    The Democrat’s determination to bring down Trump was confirmed earlier when Schiff was caught in yet another lie.

    On September 16, the Democratic Senator told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he did not know the identity of the whistleblower. He repeated the same claim the next day when he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that neither he nor his staff had “spoken directly with the whistleblower.” It is now known that his claims were bald-faced lies, and serious enough to bring the impeachment clown car to a screeching halt. Yet the rules of the game, as is proven time and time again, are always adjusted to suit the Democrats. In fact, the whistleblower may have committed a felony for failing to disclose in his or her official complaint that they had first brought the information to the attention of House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff.

    Schiff has little to worry about, however, since the media does not react to Democratic transgressions with nearly the same amount of hysteria as it does with the Republicans, which explains why Trump is fighting a constant uphill battle.

    This is where the push for impeachment is becoming a dangerous venture for the Democrats. The people are not stupid, and it does not require the shrewdest political tool to understand that the scales of justice are weighted heavily in favor of the Democrats. From Hillary Clinton escaping punishment for using her home computer to send classified government documents, to former Vice President Joe Biden bragging about arranging a billion-dollar quid pro quo with Kiev to sack Ukraine’s top prosecutor, who just happened to be investigating Biden’s son, Hunter, the Democrats rarely have anything to fear as far as justice is concerned. Yet this special status has certainly not gone unnoticed; with social media revolutionizing the ‘town square,’ the blatant hypocrisies and outright crimes are obvious to everyone.

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

    Just as Russiagate was a conspicuous effort on the part of the Democrats and their lapdog media to deflect attention away from the contents of Clinton’s emails, not to mention the identity of the leaker (as opposed to the ‘Russian hackers,’ that is), Ukrainegate is a desperate attempt to focus attention on a harmless phone call between two state leaders so as to bury the news of corruption at the highest levels of the Obama administration, up to and including not only Joe Biden, but former Secretary of State John Kerry as well. In other words, we are talking about obstruction of justice on a mind-boggling scale, and which could only be pulled off with the full support of the mainstream media. A free-thinking, independent journalistic community would have called foul on such shenanigans long ago.

    Lest anyone forget, the Democrats have been under investigation by Attorney General Bill Barr and federal prosecutor John Durham. These two are currently traveling the world in an effort to determine “the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement on Sept. 25.

    In fact, Barr and Durham’s ‘mission’ kicked off back in May, long before the smoke and mirrors of yet another Trump ‘transgression’ took front and center in living rooms across the country. Indeed, while every American has heard of the impeachment inquiry, few realize that the Democrats are under investigation for far greater crimes should they be found guilty, that is. Now, in the event that Barr and Durham attempt to present their findings to the public, the Democrats will scream in one persecuted voice that Trump is attempting to ‘obstruct justice,’ which will certainly be the greatest irony considering the source.

    In other words, there are two vehicles – one filled with Democrats, the other Republicans – careening towards an intersection at a high rate of speed, and neither looks willing to yield to the other. This is the situation confronting America at the present time: a smashup of epic, deadly proportions, quite possibly on par with its first civil war. Such a seemingly inevitable event, however, would never have been remotely possible had the media been a fair and just provider of news and information as opposed to being an instigator and provocateur of the first order.

    Now, should the Democrats get the impeachment they’ve been dreaming about ever since they lost the 2016 presidential election, at least 50 percent of the American public will understand full well that the scales of justice are tilted against them. That will be the moment when the United States is forced to confront its worst crisis in many years, simply because the Democrats have become so terrified of a longstanding political technology known as ‘free and fair elections.’


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 23:45

    Tags
    Politics

  • Hong Kong Property Prices Plunge For 8 Straight Weeks
    Hong Kong Property Prices Plunge For 8 Straight Weeks

    A new report from Centaline Property, a research firm providing private data on the property market in Hong Kong, has shown property prices are experiencing their worst downturns since late last year during the global growth scare, which sent global equity markets crashing.

    Centaline’s report said property prices in the city have plunged for eight straight weeks, mostly tied to an extreme economic deceleration in the region as macroeconomic headwinds continue to increase.

    The Central Plains City Index (CCL) is a monthly leading index that tracks property prices in Hong Kong. Regional investors use CCL to track the changing trend of the Hong Kong property market.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As a whole, the CCL Leading Index has tumbled to 180.32, -.36% w/w, -1.62% m/m, and has recorded the lowest level in 27-weeks.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The CCL Leading Index for Large-Scale housing in Hong Kong printed at 181.44, -.32% w/w, -1.70% m/m, and now at a 28-week low.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The CCL Leading Index for Small and Medium-Sized Units printed 180.26, -.37% w/w, -1.71% m/m, and now at the lowest levels in 27-weeks. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The three major leading indexes for Hong Kong property prices (above) slid for eight consecutive weeks, falling -4.29 %, -4.70%, and -4.54%, respectively.

    As shown below, 75% of the top regions in Hong Kong saw the CCL leading index drop, indicating price deceleration continued through late summer into fall.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And with a recession and social unrest expected to deepen in Hong Kong through year-end, it’s likely that CCL’s leading property price indicators will point down into 1H20.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 23:20

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • Winners & Losers In The Failed American Project For A 'New Middle East'
    Winners & Losers In The Failed American Project For A ‘New Middle East’

    Authored by Elijah Magnier, Middle East based chief international war correspondent for Al Rai Media

    The United States of America emerged victorious from the Second World War, and came out stronger than any other country in the world. The allies- notably the Soviet Union- won the war but emerged much weaker.

    They needed to reconstruct their countries and rebuild their economies, with the US demanding huge retrospective payments for its support. The US became a superpower with nuclear bomb capability and an imposing power of dominance. Industrial countries rebuilt in what the Germans called their Wirtschaftswunder and the French les Trentes Glorieuses, the thirty years of post-war prosperity. Meanwhile the US leveraged its prosperity to spread its hegemony around the world.

    US power was enhanced with the beginning of Perestroika and after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the new millennium the US establishment declared the “War on Terror” as justification to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, while attempting to subdue Hezbollah in Lebanon, changing the régime in Libya and attempting to destroy Syria, all with the goal of reshuffling and forming a “New Middle East”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the Levant, the US has dramatically failed to reach its objectives, but it has succeeded in waking Russia from its long hibernation, to challenge the US unilateral hegemony of the world and to develop new forms of alliance.

    Iran has also challenged the US hegemony incrementally since the 1979 “Islamic Revolution”. Iran has planned meticulously, and patiently built a chain of allies connecting different parts of the Middle East. Now, after 37 years, Iran can boast a necklace of robust allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan– who are all ready, if necessary, to take up arms to defend Iran.

    Iran, in fact, has greatly benefited from US mistakes.  Through its lack of understanding of populations and leaders around the world, it has universally failed to win “hearts and minds” in every Middle Eastern country where it imposed itself as a potential ally. The arrival of President Donald Trump to power helped US allies and the anti-US camp to discover, together, the limits and reach of US sanctions.

    Russia and China took the lead in offering a new, softer model of an alliance, which apparently does not aim to impose another kind of hegemony. The offer of an economic alliance and partnership is especially attractive to those who have tasted US hegemony and wish to liberate themselves from it by means of a more balanced alternative.

    During this period of Trump’s ruling, the Middle East became a huge warehouse of advanced weapons from varied sources. Every single country (and some non-state actors) has armed drones- and some even have precision and cruise missiles. But superiority in armaments by itself counts for very little, and its very balance is not enough to shift the weight to one side or another. Even the poorest country, Yemen, has done significant damage to oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a country highly equipped, militarily, and with the most modern US hardware in the Middle East.

    US President Trump was informed about the evident failure to change the régime in Syria and the equal impossibility of dislodging Iran from the Levant. He most probably aimed to avoid the loss of lives and therefore decided to abandon the country that his forces have occupied for the past few years. Nonetheless, his sudden withdrawal, even if so far it is partial (because he says, a small unit will remain behind at al-Tanf, to no strategic benefit since al-Qaem border crossing is now operational) – came as a shock to his Kurdish and Israeli allies. Trump proved his readiness to abandon his closest friends & enemies overnight.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Based on the 2006 proposed plan to redrawn the borders of the Middle East by retired Army lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters, which he referenced as “blood borders”.

    Trump’s move offered an unexpected victory to Damascus. The Syrian government is now slowly recovering its most important source of food, agriculture and energy. North-East Syria represents a quarter of the country’s geography. The northern provinces have exceptional wealth in water, electricity dams, oil, gas and food. President Trump has restored it to President Bashar al-Assad. This will also serve Trump’s forthcoming election campaign.

    Assad trusts that Russia will succeed in halting the Turkish advance and reduce its consequences, perhaps by asking the Kurds to pull back to a 30 km distance from the Turkish borders to satisfy President Erdogan’s anxiety. That could also fit the Turkish-Syrian 1998 Adana agreement (5 km buffer zone rather than 30 km) and offer tranquillity to all parties involved. Turkey wants to make sure the Kurdish YPG, the PKK Syrian branch, is disarmed and contained. Nothing seems difficult for Russia to manage, particularly when the most difficult objective has already been graciously offered: the US forces’ withdrawal.

    President Assad will be delighted to trim the Kurds’ nails. The Kurds offered Afrin to Turkey to prevent the Syrian government forces controlling it. The Kurds, in exchange for the State of their dreams (Rojava), supported US occupation and Syria’s enemy, Israel. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu bombed hundreds of targets in Syria, preferring ISIS to dominate the country and pushing Trump to give him the Syrian-occupied Golan Heights as a gift- although the US has no authority over this Syrian territory.

    Hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, millions of refugees were driven from their homes and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on destroying Syria. Nonetheless, the Syrian state and President Assad have prevailed. Notwithstanding the consequences of the war, Arab and Gulf countries are eager to return to Syria and participate in reconstruction. Whoever rules Syria, the attempt to destroy the Syrian state and change the existing régime has failed.

    Russia is one of the most successful players here, on numerous fronts, and is now in a position President Putin could only have dreamed about before 2015. Numerous analysts and think tanks predicted Moscow would sink into the Syrian quagmire, and they mocked its arsenal. They were all wrong. Russia learned its lesson from the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It offered air and missile coverage and brilliantly cooperated with Iran and its allies as ground forces.

    President Putin skillfully managed the Syrian war, striking a balance and creating good ties with Turkey, a NATO ally- even after the downing of his jet by Ankara in 2015. Russia wanted to collaborate with the US but was faced with an administration with persistent “Red-Soviet” phobia. Moscow proceeded without Washington to solve the Syrian war and defeat the jihadists who had flocked to the country with support from the West (via Turkey and Jordan) from all over the world.

    Russia showed off its new arsenal and managed to sell a lot of its weapons. It has trained its Air Force using real battle scenarios, fought alongside the Syrian and Iranian armies, and a non-state actor (Hezbollah). It defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda 40 years after its defeat in Afghanistan. President Putin has distinguished himself as a trustworthy partner and ally, unlike Trump- who abandoned the Kurds, and who blackmails even his closest ally (Saudi Arabia).

    Russia imposed the Astana process instead of Geneva for peace talks, it offered countries to use their local currencies for commerce rather than the dollar, and it is dealing pragmatically with Iran and Saudi Arabia, and with Assad and Erdogan. The Americans, by their recklessness, showed themselves incapable of diplomacy.

    Moscow mediated between the Syrian Kurds and the central government in Damascus even when these had been under US control for years. Putin behaved wisely with Israel even when he accused Tel Aviv of provoking the killing of his officers, and stayed relatively neutral in relation to the Iran-Israel struggle.

    On the other hand, Tel Aviv never thought Syria would be reunited. Today Damascus has armed drones, precision and cruise missiles from Iran, supersonic anti-ship Russian missiles- and has survived the destruction of its infrastructure and so many years of war.

    Israel has lost the prospect of a Kurdish state (Rojava) as an ally. This dream has gone now for many decades to come and with it the partition of Syria and Iraq. The “Deal of the Century” makes no sense anymore and the non-aggression deal with the Arab states is a mirage. Everything that Trump’s close advisor, Prime Minister Netanyahu, wanted has lost its meaning, and Israel now has to deal with the Russian presence in the Middle East and bear the consequences of the victory achieved by Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians.

    After the Kurds, Israel is the second biggest loser- even if it has suffered no financial damage and no Israeli lives have been lost in combat. Netanyahu’s ambitions can no longer be used in his election scenario. Israel needs to prepare for living next door to Assad, who will certainly want back Syria’s Golan- a priority for Damascus to tackle once domestic reconstruction is on its way. He has been preparing the local resistance for years, for the day when Syria will recover this territory.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 22:55

    Tags
    Politics

  • Elon Musk Has Officially Pissed Off Pablo Escobar's Brother
    Elon Musk Has Officially Pissed Off Pablo Escobar’s Brother

    In what is just another normal day of business for the circus over at Tesla, Roberto Escobar, former accountant to his druglord brother Pablo, has now vowed to “take down” Elon Musk, according to the Sun. 

    The animosity stems from the allegation that Musk stole the idea for his “Not-A-Flamethrower” from Escobar during a visit to the Escobar compound in the summer of 2017. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In January of 2018, Musk’s Boring Company released the large blowtorches that are shaped like guns. He named them “Not-A-Flamethrower” as a result of U.S. customs officials telling Musk they wouldn’t allow the sale of “flamethrowers” nationwide. All 20,000 of the products that were manufactured were sold out within days.

    But Escobar says that he was the one who suggested the concept to Musk’s engineer months before they were released, inspired by his brother’s purported habit of burning money to keep warm.

    Escobar launched his own flamethrower earlier this year and also threatened to sue Elon Musk for IP theft. Musk glibly jabbed back at Escobar on Twitter, reminding him that “It’s Not A Flamethrower, Mr. Escobar.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Escobar now seems dead set on legal action. He told the Telegraph:

    “We will soon file a $100 million case against him in America, and I will try my best to make sure he loses his stronghold in Tesla Inc. He knows exactly what he has done to us.”

    His brother, Pablo Escobar, was one of the most well known Colombian drug lords who monopolized the trade of cocaine into the U.S. in the 1980’s and 1990’s. He was reportedly worth about 45 billion pounds at the time of his death, which made him the “wealthiest criminal in history”. 

    Robert acted as co-founder of his brother’s cartel and was the organization’s accountant. 

    But the real question here may lie behind the lede. Tesla skeptic Mark Spiegel astutely asked on Twitter:

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


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 22:30

  • "Russian Asset" Is A Meaningless Noise War-Pigs Make With Their Face-Holes
    “Russian Asset” Is A Meaningless Noise War-Pigs Make With Their Face-Holes

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    Both Tulsi Gabbard and the Green Party of the United States have issued scorching rebukes of Hillary Clinton for baseless accusations the former Secretary of State made during a recent interview claiming that both Gabbard and former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein are aligned with the Russian government.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in a transparent reference to Gabbard.

    “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset.”

    Clinton provided no evidence for her outlandish claims, because she does not have any. Gabbard has repeatedly denied centrist conspiracy theories that she intends to run as a third-party candidate, a claim which establishment pundits have been making more and more often because they know there will never be any consequences when their claims are disproven. There is no evidence of any kind connecting either Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard to the Russian government.

    Of course, this total lack of evidence hasn’t dissuaded Clintonites from falling all over themselves trying to justify Mommy’s claims anyway.

    “Russian ‘assets’ are not formal relationships in the USIC [US Intelligence Community] sense of the word,” CNN analyst and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter.

    “If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests, you’re a source who is too dumb to know you’re being played to ask for money.”

    “It’s important to point out here that a Russian ‘asset’ is not the same thing as a Russian ‘agent’,” tweeted virulent establishment narrative manager Caroline Orr. “An asset can be witting or unwitting; it’s any person or org who can be used to advance Russia’s interests. It’s pretty clear that Tulsi satisfies that criteria.”

    “One doesn’t have to be on the Kremlin’s payroll to be a Russian asset. One doesn’t even have to know they are a Russian asset to be a Russian asset. Have you not heard the term ‘useful idiot’ before?” tweeted writer Kara Calavera.

    Yep, yeah, that makes perfect sense. One doesn’t have to actually have any formal relationship with the Kremlin to be a Kremlin asset. One doesn’t have to know they’re a Kremlin asset to be a Kremlin asset. The Kremlin doesn’t even need to know one is a Kremlin asset for them to be a Kremlin asset. Nothing has to have happened except the accusation of being a Kremlin asset. It’s just kind of a vague, shapeless nothing thing that doesn’t necessarily have any actual meaning to it at all besides the way it makes people feel inside. It’s more like a religious belief, really.

    Isn’t it interesting how that works? Establishment loyalists get a damaging and incendiary tag that they can pin on anyone who disagrees with them, with the sole evidentiary requirement being that disagreement itself.

    Author and antiwar activist David Swanson noticed this bizarre intellectual contortion as well, tweeting, “Notice that they carefully define ‘Russian asset’ to mean not necessarily an asset and not necessarily with any connection to Russia.”

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

    Establishment narrative managers have been performing this obnoxious trick for years; this is just the most publicly it’s been brought into the spotlight. They claim someone is a Russian asset, then when asked to provide proof that the person is working for Russia, they say they might be an “unwitting” Russian asset, or a “useful idiot”, who does the Kremlin’s bidding without realizing it by sharing ideas and information which the Russian government agrees with. Which is just another way of saying that they hold positions which diverge from the microscopic Overton window of establishment-authorized opinion.

    Such positions typically consist of some form of opposition to longstanding US military agendas, such as America’s failed policy of regime change interventionism. Both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard have inserted skepticism of US military policy into mainstream political discourse, which is tremendously inconvenient for the people whose job it is to manufacture consent for new wars and endless military expansionism.

    The “Russian asset” smear has given the establishment narrative managers the ability to make incredibly inflammatory and scandalous accusations about anyone who opposes the US establishment foreign policy consensus, without ever having to back them up with facts. It’s no obstacle for me if I can’t prove that you have any connection to the Russian government, because I can still smear you as a Russian asset by saying your views align with Moscow’s interests, or by noting that Russian news media has done news reporting on you as our friend Neera Tanden does here:

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

    Never mind the fact that there are many, many reasons to oppose the US establishment foreign policy consensus which have nothing to do with Russia. Never mind the fact that the US establishment foreign policy consensus has been an unmitigated disaster that has only made the world worse and is pushing the US-centralized power alliance toward a point where a direct military confrontation with Russia, China and their allies becomes inescapable. Never mind the fact that Russia is far from the only country in the world that wishes America would scale back its aggressive military expansionism. It has been firmly established beyond any doubt that it is now literally impossible for an American political figure to vocally oppose US warmongering without being labeled a Russian asset.

    In reality, “Russian asset” is nothing more than a completely meaningless noise that war pigs make with their face holes, no more coherent and communicative than the barking of a dog or the chattering of a squirrel. If we were to come up with a definition for that term which reflects the way it is actually being used in modern political discourse, that definition would be something like, “An incantation which magically makes political dissent look like something treasonous and Machiavellian.”

    Establishment narrative managers are getting more and more aggressive with the psychological bullying tactics they are using against political dissidents. Applying a ridiculous, meaningless pejorative to anyone who disagrees with mainstream US foreign policy views is just one more ugly tool in their infernal toolbox. It is not normal, healthy or acceptable to accuse someone of being a Russian asset just because they disagree with the authorized commentators of the American political/media class, and when they make such accusations they should be publicly shamed for it.

    *  *  *

    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 Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing 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

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 22:05

  • China Kills Tarantino Movie Over Controversial Bruce Lee Fight Scene
    China Kills Tarantino Movie Over Controversial Bruce Lee Fight Scene

    China has killed the distribution of Quentin Tarantino’s film “Once Upon a Time In Hollywood,” one week before its major debut at box offices across the country, reported the Los Angeles Times.

    The widespread release of the film was planned for Oct. 25th. Chinese regulators canceled those plans over a controversial fight scene featuring an actor inaccurately portraying legendary Chinese martial arts master, Bruce Lee, said a source familiar with the film. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese film regulators didn’t explain their cancellation decision. But another source familiar with the movie told The Hollywood Reporter that Shannon Lee, Bruce Lee’s daughter, “filed a complaint to China’s National Film Administration” due to the inaccurate portrayal of her late father. She said Tarantino’s film made her late father look “arrogant” and “boastful.”

    The decision to prevent the movie from debuting is a massive blow to Sony and the Chinese distributor Bona Film Group, that is because China has the largest box office market in the world. 

    Shannon Lee, chief executive of Bruce Lee Family Co., said in July Tarantino’s film was a “mockery” of her father. 

    “The script treatment of my father as this arrogant, egotistical punching bag was really disheartening — and, I feel, unnecessary,” Lee told The Times.

    Tarantino responded to Lee’s comments in late summer by saying, “Bruce Lee was kind of an arrogant guy. The way he was talking, I didn’t just make a lot of that up.”

    The controversial scene in question involves a fight between Mike Moh, the actor who portrays Bruce Lee, and Brad Pitt’s character, stuntman Cliff Booth, where a fight eventually leads to Moh [Lee] getting bodyslammed into the side of a car.

    In an interview with Birth.Movies.Death, Moh, revealed in Aug., that the original script had “major issues” when it came to an accurate portrayal of Bruce Lee.” I’m not going to tell you what the original script had exactly, but when I read it, I was so conflicted because he’s my hero – Bruce in my mind was literally a god. He wasn’t a person to me, he was a superhero. And I think that’s how most people view Bruce.”

    Tarantino has said he has no intention of recutting his Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to appease China’s censors.

    A source close to the situation tells The Hollywood Reporter that the auteur is taking a take-it-or-leave-it stance in the wake of Chinese regulators pulling the film.

    Tarantino had another run-in with Chinese regulators back in 2012 when he released Django Unchained, which the movie was pulled from theaters after graphic scenes showed excessive nudity and violence. 

    Django Unchained was re-released after an edit, supervised by Chinese regulators, the movie then flopped, making only $2.7 million, opposed to hundreds of millions of dollars.

    The latest distribution debacle comes at a time when tensions between the US and China are at high levels due to an ongoing trade war.

    Earlier this month, we reported how China canceled all broadcasts of NBA games due to a now-deleted tweet by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey supporting protestors in Hong Kong.

    China’s censorship doesn’t stop at the movies or the NBA. Apple, South Park, and Activision Blizzard, all have recently been targeted by the Chinese government to remove content or face penalties that could result in a denial of access to Chinese markets. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 21:40

    Tags
    Entertainment Culture

  • Here's Why 97% Of Congress Get Re-Elected Each Year
    Here’s Why 97% Of Congress Get Re-Elected Each Year

    Submitted by Adam Andrzejewski, first published in Forbes

    How is 97 percent of Congress able to get re-elected each year even though only 17 percent of the American people believe our representatives are doing a good job?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s called an incumbent protection system. Taxpayers have a right to know how it works.

    Recently, our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com, mashed up the federal checkbook with the congressional campaign donor database (source: OpenSecrets.org). We found powerful members of Congress soliciting campaign donations from federal contractors based in their districts.

    We followed the money and found a culture of conflict-of-interest. The confluence of federal money, campaign cash, private employment, investments, prestigious committee appointments, political power, nepotism, and other conflicts are a fact pattern.

    Furthermore, members of Congress own investment stock in, are employed by, and receive retirement pensions from federal contractors to whom they direct billions of taxpayer dollars.

    Moreover, members sponsor legislation that affects these contractors. The contractor’s lobbyists then advocate for the legislation that helps the member and the contractor. Oftentimes, the contractor’s lobbyist also donates campaign cash to the member.

    Here are five case examples detailing the conflict-of-interest among five powerful members of Congress:

    Rep. John Larson (D-CT1): United Technologies (UT) executives, employees, political action committee, and affiliated lobbyists are the #1 campaign donor to Larson’s committee ($377,050). UT collected federal grants (subsidies) $83.8 million and federal contracts $16.1 billion (2014-2018). Mr. Larson owns UT stock 2012-2018 (last disclosure). Larsen is a ranking member on House Ways and Means.

    Seven years ago, Larson’s wife got a state job from the wife of a campaign donor, who was also the state insurance commissioner. She beat out 199 other candidates and was the only one to fill out a job application. Since her hiring, she’s earned an estimated $600,000 in cash compensation.

    Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK4): The Chickasaw Nation and affiliates are the #1 campaign donor to Cole’s committee ($258,461). The Nation received $700 million in federal grants and $434,000 in surplus military equipment from the Pentagon, including mine-resistant vehicles, night vision goggles, mine-detecting sets, and rifles that shoot .308 rounds. Cole is a ranking member on House Appropriations.

    Since 2002, Cole’s campaign committee has hired Cole’s private political consulting partnership: Cole, Hargrave, and Snodgrass. Cole’s campaign has paid his firm a total of $224,000.

    Since 2003, Mr. Cole has earned roughly $320,000 in “management fees” from his firm – while also serving in Congress. He’s also disclosed receiving $175,000 – $575,000 in “dividends/capital gains” and his “equity interest” in the firm is listed as between $250,000 – $500,000.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Chickasaw Nation responded regarding their donations and any perceived conflict-of-interest issues with Rep. Tom Cole:

    As an active participant in the political process working to enhance the quality of life of our citizens, we support candidates who have similar policy views.

    The Chickasaw Nation spokesperson

    Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN5): Vanderbilt University’s executives and employees are the #1 all-time campaign donor to Cooper’s committee ($135,261) – including $21,500 from just-retired chancellor Nicholas Zeppos. Vanderbilt has received $2.6 billion in federal payments (2014-2018) including grants ($2.3 billion); direct payments ($31.2 million); and contracts ($187 million). Cooper is a ranking member of the Budget committee.

    Mr. Cooper was employed by Vanderbilt during the period 2005 through 2017 and disclosed earnings of $250,500 in cash compensation. He made between $20,000 and $23,500 a year teaching a graduate level class in Vanderbilt’s HealthCare MBA program at the Owen Graduate School of Management as an adjunct professor.

    Former Rep. – Current Governor Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota): Sanford Health’s executives, employees, and lobbyists are the #1 all-time campaign donor to Noem’s federal committee ($110,462). Top executives provided Noem campaign donations early in her career including $7,500 from CEO Kelby Krabbenhoft.

    In 2019, Noem was sworn in as governor of South Dakota. She’s appointed two Sanford executives to head up state agencies. Noem’s transition chief was a Sanford lobbyist.

    Governor Noem has proposed aiding the state’s nursing home industry by raising the rate of Medicaid payments and providing $5 million in grants to help innovate facilities. Sanford Health owns 32 nursing homes in South Dakota.

    Does Sanford Health really need taxpayer aid? This “nonprofit” organization has annual revenues of $3.7 billion, assets of $2.8 billion, and paid it’s CEO $2.2 million last year.

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI12): Although Dingell wasn’t elected to Congress until 2014, a member of the Dingell family has held MI-12 congressional seat for 86 years.

    The executives and employees of the University of Michigan (U-M) are the #1 campaign donor to Dingell’s committee ($61,502). This is despite the fact that Dingell sits on two prominent U-M boards: the Ford School of Public Policy and the Depression Center. Trustees and university employees of those boards have donated to her campaign.

    One of Dingell’s duties on the board of the Ford School is to help the school raise money and network.

    Dingell is a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On March 21, 2019, she signed an earmark letter to the Department of Transportation (USDOT) in support of $7.5 million in grants to U-M and other partners regarding research on self-driving cars. In a press release, Dingell took credit that USDOT authorized the grant in August 2019.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The University of Michigan responded regarding their donations and any perceived conflict-of-interest issues with Rep. Debbie Dingell:

    Our employees are free to make personal campaign contributions to any elected official they may wish to support.

    University of Michigan spokesperson

    Nothing we discovered is illegal. At arms-length, all of the transactions are legal. And that’s the problem.

    We polled our subscribers and 1,900 people responded: 96 percent thought it was unethical for a member of Congress to solicit campaign donations from federal contractors based in their districts. Furthermore, 92 percent said it was an important or very important issue.

    The American people get it. Members should refuse to accept campaign donations from federal contractors and their affiliates.

    Note: A request for comment was sent to all members and contractors mentioned in this piece. No members of Congress responded to our comment requests. Contractor respondents included: The University of Michigan, full comment, here; The Chickasaw Nation, full comment, here. Sanford Health didn’t respond to this request, however, they issued this comment earlier, here.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 21:15

    Tags
    Business Finance

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 20

Today’s News 20th October 2019

  • Escobar: Syria May Be The Biggest Defeat For The CIA Since Vietnam
    Escobar: Syria May Be The Biggest Defeat For The CIA Since Vietnam

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via ConsortiumNews.com,

    What is happening in Syria, following yet another Russia-brokered deal, is a massive geopolitical game-changer.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I’ve tried to summarize it in a single paragraph this way:

    “It’s a quadruple win. The U.S. performs a face saving withdrawal, which Trump can sell as avoiding a conflict with NATO ally Turkey. Turkey has the guarantee – by the Russians – that the Syrian Army will be in control of the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia prevents a war escalation and keeps the Russia-Iran-Turkey peace process alive.  And Syria will eventually regain control of the entire northeast.”

    Syria may be the biggest defeat for the CIA since Vietnam.

    Yet that hardly begins to tell the whole story.

    Allow me to briefly sketch in broad historical strokes how we got here.

    It began with an intuition I felt last month at the tri-border point of Lebanon, Syria and Occupied Palestine; followed by a subsequent series of conversations in Beirut with first-class Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian, Russian, French and Italian analysts; all resting on my travels in Syria since the 1990s; with a mix of selected bibliography in French available at Antoine’s in Beirut thrown in.

    The Vilayets

    Let’s start in the 19thcentury when Syria consisted of six vilayets — Ottoman provinces — without counting Mount Lebanon, which had a special status since 1861 to the benefit of Maronite Christians and Jerusalem, which was a sanjak (administrative division) of Istanbul.

    The vilayets did not define the extremely complex Syrian identity: for instance, Armenians were the majority in the vilayet of Maras, Kurds in Diyarbakir – both now part of Turkey in southern Anatolia – and the vilayets of Aleppo and Damascus were both Sunni Arab.

    Nineteenth century Ottoman Syria was the epitome of cosmopolitanism. There were no interior borders or walls. Everything was inter-dependent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ethnic groups in the Balkans and Asia Minor, early 20th Century, Historical Atlas, 1911.

    Then the Europeans, profiting from World War I, intervened. France got the Syrian-Lebanese littoral, and later the vilayets of Maras and Mosul (today in Iraq). Palestine was separated from Cham (the “Levant”), to be internationalized. The vilayet of Damascus was cut in half: France got the north, the Brits got the south. Separation between Syria and the mostly Christian Lebanese lands came later.

    There was always the complex question of the Syria-Iraq border. Since antiquity, the Euphrates acted as a barrier, for instance between the Cham of the Umayyads and their fierce competitors on the other side of the river, the Mesopotamian Abbasids.

    James Barr, in his splendid “A Line in the Sand,” notes, correctly, that the Sykes-Picot agreement imposed on the Middle East the European conception of territory: their “line in the sand” codified a delimited separation between nation-states. The problem is, there were no nation-states in region in the early 20thcentury.

    The birth of Syria as we know it was a work in progress, involving the Europeans, the Hashemite dynasty, nationalist Syrians invested in building a Greater Syria including Lebanon, and the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. An important factor is that few in the region lamented losing dependence on Hashemite Medina, and except the Turks, the loss of the vilayet of Mosul in what became Iraq after World War I.

    In 1925, Sunnis became the de facto prominent power in Syria, as the French unified Aleppo and Damascus. During the 1920s France also established the borders of eastern Syria. And the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923, forced the Turks to give up all Ottoman holdings but didn’t keep them out of the game.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turkish borders according to the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923.

    The Turks soon started to encroach on the French mandate, and began blocking the dream of Kurdish autonomy. France in the end gave in: the Turkish-Syrian border would parallel the route of the fabledBagdadbahn — the Berlin-Baghdad railway.

    In the 1930s France gave in even more: the sanjak of Alexandretta (today’s Iskenderun, in Hatay province, Turkey), was finally annexed by Turkey in 1939 when only 40 percent of the population was Turkish.

    The annexation led to the exile of tens of thousands of Armenians. It was a tremendous blow for Syrian nationalists. And it was a disaster for Aleppo, which lost its corridor to the Eastern Mediterranean.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turkish forces under entered Alexandretta on July 5, 1938.

    This emergent Syria — out of conflicting Turkish, French, British and myriad local interests —obviously could not, and did not, please any community. Still, the heart of the nation configured what was described as “useful Syria.” No less than 60 percent of the nation was — and remains — practically void.Yet, geopolitically, that translates into “strategic depth” — the heart of the matter in the current war.To the eastern steppes, Syria was all about Bedouin tribes. To the north, it was all about the Turkish-Kurdish clash. And to the south, the border was a mirage in the desert, only drawn with the advent of Transjordan. Only the western front, with Lebanon, was established, and consolidated after WWII.

    From Hafez to Bashar

    Starting in 1963, the Baath party, secular and nationalist, took over Syria, finally consolidating its power in 1970 with Hafez al-Assad, who instead of just relying on his Alawite minority, built a humongous, hyper-centralized state machinery mixed with a police state. The key actors who refused to play the game were the Muslim Brotherhood, all the way to being massacred during the hardcore 1982 Hama repression.

    Secularism and a police state: that’s how the fragile Syrian mosaic was preserved. But already in the 1970s major fractures were emerging: between major cities and a very poor periphery; between the “useful” west and the Bedouin east; between Arabs and Kurds. But the urban elites never repudiated the iron will of Damascus: cronyism, after all, was quite profitable.

    Damascus interfered heavily with the Lebanese civil war since 1976 at the invitation of the Arab League as a “peacekeeping force.” In Hafez al-Assad’s logic, stressing the Arab identity of Lebanon was essential to recover Greater Syria. But Syrian control over Lebanon started to unravel in 2005, after the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, very close to Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) eventually left.

    Bashar al-Assad had taken power in 2000. Unlike his father, he bet on the Alawites to run the state machinery, preventing the possibility of a coup but completely alienating himself from the poor, Syrian on the street.

    What the West defined as the Arab Spring, began in Syria in March 2011; it was a revolt against the Alawites as much  as a revolt against Damascus. Totally instrumentalized by the foreign interests, the revolt sprang up in extremely poor, dejected Sunni peripheries: Deraa in the south, the deserted east, and the suburbs of Damascus and Aleppo.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Protest in Damascus, April 24, 2011. (syriana2011/Flickr)

    What was not understood in the West is that this “beggars banquet” was not against the Syrian nation, but against a “regime.” Jabhat al-Nusra, in a P.R. exercise, even broke its official link with al-Qaeda and changed its denomination to Fatah al-Cham and then Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (“Organization for the Liberation of the Levant”). Only ISIS/Daesh said they were fighting for the end of Sykes-Picot.

    By 2014, the perpetually moving battlefield was more or less established: Damascus against both Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS/Daesh, with a wobbly role for the Kurds in the northeast, obsessed in preserving the cantons of Afrin, Kobane and Qamichli.

    But the key point is that each katiba (“combat group”), each neighborhood, each village, and in fact each combatant was in-and-out of allegiances non-stop. That yielded a dizzying nebulae of jihadis, criminals, mercenaries, some linked to al-Qaeda, some to Daesh, some trained by the Americans, some just making a quick buck.

    For instance Salafis — lavishly financed by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — especially Jaish al-Islam, even struck alliances with the PYD Kurds in Syria and the jihadis of Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (the remixed, 30,000-strong  al-Qaeda in Syria). Meanwhile, the PYD Kurds (an emanation of the Turkish Kurds’ PKK, which Ankara consider “terrorists”) profited from this unholy mess — plus a deliberate ambiguity by Damascus – to try to create their autonomous Rojava.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A demonstration in the city of Afrin in support of the YPG against the Turkish invasion of Afrin, Jan. 19, 2018. (Voice of America Kurdish, Wikimedia Commons)

    That Turkish Strategic Depth

    Turkey was all in. Turbo-charged by the neo-Ottoman politics of former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the logic was to reconquer parts of the Ottoman empire, and get rid of Assad because he had helped PKK Kurdish rebels in Turkey.

    Davutoglu’s Strategik Derinlik (“Strategic Depth’), published in 2001, had been a smash hit in Turkey, reclaiming the glory of eight centuries of an sprawling empire, compared to puny 911 kilometers of borders fixed by the French and the Kemalists. Bilad al Cham, the Ottoman province congregating Lebanon, historical Palestine, Jordan and Syria, remained a powerful magnet in both the Syrian and Turkish unconscious.

    No wonder Turkey’s Recep Erdogan was fired up: in 2012 he even boasted he was getting ready to pray in the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, post-regime change, of course. He has been gunning for a safe zone inside the Syrian border — actually a Turkish enclave — since 2014. To get it, he has used a whole bag of nasty players — from militias close to the Muslim Brotherhood to hardcore Turkmen gangs.

    With the establishment of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), for the first time Turkey allowed foreign weaponized groups to operate on its own territory. A training camp was set up in 2011 in the sanjakof Alexandretta. The Syrian National Council was also created in Istanbul – a bunch of non-entities from the diaspora who had not been in Syria for decades.

    Ankara enabled a de facto Jihad Highway — with people from Central Asia, Caucasus, Maghreb, Pakistan, Xinjiang, all points north in Europe being smuggled back and forth at will. In 2015, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha set up the dreaded Jaish al-Fath (“Army of Conquest”), which included Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda).

    At the same time, Ankara maintained an extremely ambiguous relationship with ISIS/Daesh, buying its smuggled oil, treating jihadis in Turkish hospitals, and paying zero attention to jihad intel collected and developed on Turkish territory. For at least five years, the MIT — Turkish intelligence – provided political and logistic background to the Syrian opposition while weaponizing a galaxy of Salafis. After all, Ankara believed that ISIS/Daesh only existed because of the “evil” deployed by the Assad regime.

    The Russian Factor

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Russian President Vladiimir Putin meeting with President of Turkey Recep Erdogan; Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov standing in background, Ankara, Dec. 1, 2014 Ankara. (Kremlin)

    The first major game-changer was the spectacular Russian entrance in the summer of 2015. Vladimir Putin had asked the U.S. to join in the fight against the Islamic State as the Soviet Union allied against Hitler, negating the American idea that this was Russia’s bid to restore its imperial glory. But the American plan instead, under Barack Obama, was single-minded: betting on a rag-tag Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a mix of Kurds and Sunni Arabs, supported by air power and U.S. Special Forces, north of the Euphrates, to smash ISIS/Daesh all the way to Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.

    Raqqa, bombed to rubble by the Pentagon, may have been taken by the SDF, but Deir ez-Zor was taken by Damascus’s Syrian Arab Army. The ultimate American aim was to consistently keep the north of the Euphrates under U.S. power, via their proxies, the SDF and the Kurdish PYD/YPG. That American dream is now over, lamented by imperial Democrats and Republicans alike.

    The CIA will be after Trump’s scalp till Kingdom Come.

    Kurdish Dream Over

    Talk about a cultural misunderstanding. As much as the Syrian Kurds believed U.S. protection amounted to an endorsement of their independence dreams, Americans never seemed to understand that throughout the “Greater Middle East” you cannot buy a tribe. At best, you can rent them. And they use you according to their interests. I’ve seen it from Afghanistan to Iraq’s Anbar province.

    The Kurdish dream of a contiguous, autonomous territory from Qamichli to Manbij is over. Sunni Arabs living in this perimeter will resist any Kurdish attempt at dominance.

    The Syrian PYD was founded in 2005 by PKK militants. In 2011, Syrians from the PKK came from Qandil – the PKK base in northern Iraq – to build the YPG militia for the PYD. In predominantly Arab zones, Syrian Kurds are in charge of governing because for them Arabs are seen as a bunch of barbarians, incapable of building their “democratic, socialist, ecological and multi-communitarian” society.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Kurdish PKK guerillas In Kirkuk, Iraq. (Kurdishstruggle via Flickr)

    One can imagine how conservative Sunni Arab tribal leaders hate their guts. There’s no way these tribal leaders will ever support the Kurds against the SAA or the Turkish army; after all these Arab tribal leaders spent a lot of time in Damascus seeking support from Bashar al-Assad.  And now the Kurds themselves have accepted that support in the face of the Trukish incursion, greenlighted by Trump.

    East of Deir ez-Zor, the PYD/YPG already had to say goodbye to the region that is responsible for 50 percent of Syria’s oil production. Damascus and the SAA now have the upper hand. What’s left for the PYD/YPG is to resign themselves to Damascus’s and Russian protection against Turkey, and the chance of exercising sovereignty in exclusively Kurdish territories.

    Ignorance of the West

    The West, with typical Orientalist haughtiness, never understood that Alawites, Christians, Ismailis and Druze in Syria would always privilege Damascus for protection compared to an “opposition” monopolized by hardcore Islamists, if not jihadis.  The West also did not understand that the government in Damascus, for survival, could always count on formidable Baath party networks plus the dreaded mukhabarat — the intel services.

    Rebuilding Syria

    The reconstruction of Syria may cost as much as $200 billion. Damascus has already made it very clear that the U.S. and the EU are not welcome. China will be in the forefront, along with Russia and Iran; this will be a project strictly following the Eurasia integration playbook — with the Chinese aiming to revive Syria’s strategic positioning in the Ancient Silk Road.

    As for Erdogan, distrusted by virtually everyone, and a tad less neo-Ottoman than in the recent past, he now seems to have finally understood that Bashar al-Assad “won’t go,” and he must live with it. Ankara is bound to remain imvolved with Tehran and Moscow, in finding a comprehensive, constitutional solution for the Syrian tragedy through the former “Astana process”, later developed in Ankara.

    The war may not have been totally won, of course. But against all odds, it’s clear a unified, sovereign Syrian nation is bound to prevail over every perverted strand of geopolitical molotov cocktails concocted in sinister NATO/GCC labs. History will eventually tell us that, as an example to the whole Global South, this will remain the ultimate game-changer.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/20/2019 – 00:00

    Tags
    Politics

  • These Are The Most (And Least) Generous Countries In The World
    These Are The Most (And Least) Generous Countries In The World

    The Charities Aid Foundation has released the 2019 edition of the World Giving Index which surveyed 1.3 million people in 128 countries to determine generosity levels.

    Unfortunately, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, generosity simply isn’t possible in some countries due to unrest or high poverty levels.

    As in previous years, Myanmar had the highest share of people most likely to donate to charity with 81 percent. It consistently tops studies about charitable giving, mainly because of the strong influence of Theravada Buddhists practising Sangha Dana where many people believe that doing good in this life improves their chances of their next life being a better one.

    Infographic: The Most Generous Countries in the World | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest scoring countries in the index were Georgia and Yemen with 6 percent of people stating that they made a charitable donation in the past month.

    Infographic: Where People Are Least Likely To Donate To Charity | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Charity is more than likely one of the last things on people’s minds in Yemen which has been ravaged by years of war.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 23:30

    Tags
    Social Issues

  • Navy Patents UFO-Like Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor And Hybrid Space/Sea Crafts
    Navy Patents UFO-Like Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor And Hybrid Space/Sea Crafts

    Authored by Jake Anderson via TheMindUnleashed.com,

    A mysterious set of patents filed recently by a U.S Navy researcher has caught the eyes of technologists and conspiracy theorists alike.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    These patents describe exotic technologies that do not exist in the commercial or military spheres—as far as we know—and that usually only surface in UFO lore, including high-energy electromagnetic force fields, revolutionary propulsion systems, and a “hybrid aerospace-underwater craft.”

    The newest patent is for a practical fusion reactor that could be stored in aircraft to help achieve unimaginable speeds and maneuverability.

    The mystery around these patents continues to grow during a time in which the Navy and State Department have stunningly reversed their decades-old policy of not acknowledging UFO sightings. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division is the home of the high-level Navy researcher, the equally mysterious Salvatore Cezar Pais, who in recent years has filed patents for supposedly operable revolutionary technologies such as  room temperature superconductor (RTSC) and the high-energy electromagnetic field generator (HEEMFG).

    Perhaps the most surprising patent concerns the “hybrid aerospace-underwater craft,” which can supposedly navigate with equal precision through space, air, and water with no heat signature and “engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level.”

    In the patents filed, Pais has revealed that Chinese scientists are already way ahead of the United States in such fields. The reason this is a shocking admission is because military personnel, Navy officers, and air pilots have for years reported USOs (unidentified submerged objects) that seem to fly in and out of the sea at incomphrensible speeds.

    The newest patent teases the discovery of the “Holy Grail” of energy production, the long sought nuclear fusion reactor, which could revolutionize life on Earth by creating a sustainable long-term fuel source and reduce radioactive waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, scientists do not know how to manage systems that utilize high-pressure plasma in the range of hundreds of millions of degrees Fahrenheit and can only create split second controlled nuclear fusion reactions.

    However, the patent for Pais’ “Plasma Compression Fusion Device,” which was only disclosed September 26, 2019 states:

    “At present there are few envisioned fusion reactors/devices that come in a small, compact package (ranging from 0.3 to 2 meters in diameter) and typically they use different versions of plasma magnetic confinement. Three such devices are the Lockheed Martin (LM) Skunk Works Compact Fusion Reactor (LM-CFR) , the EMC2 Polywell fusion concept, and the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) machine. […] These devices feature short plasma confinement times, possible plasma instabilities with the scaling of size, and it is questionable whether they have the ability of achieving the break – even fusion condition, let alone a self-sustained plasma burn leading to ignition.” 

    Pais states that this technology would be capable of producing as much as a terawatt (1 trillion watts) of power, which vastly surpasses America’s largest current nuclear power plant. While it’s not known whether such technology is possible at all, much less in a compact structure, we do know that the U.S. military and private firms like Lockheed Martin are competing with the government run-Chinese Academy of Sciences to create the world’s first compact nuclear reactor. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 23:00

    Tags
    Technology Internet

  • Trump Scraps Plan To Hold 2020 G-7 Summit At His Doral Golf Resort After "Irrational Hostility"
    Trump Scraps Plan To Hold 2020 G-7 Summit At His Doral Golf Resort After "Irrational Hostility"

    Any journalists who thought that 10:00pm on Saturday may mercifully be devoid of breaking news, were shocked, and furious to discover that that was Donald Trump’s preferred time to tweet, following an intense backlash by both Democrats and Republicans over his trampling of the Emoluments clause, that he would scrap plans to hold next year’s G-7 summit at his Doral golf resort in Miami due to “both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility.”

    Instead, Trump said he would “begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately.”

    According to Trump’s late Saturday tweetstorm, the president “thought I was doing something very good for our Country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 Leaders.” The tweet then trailed off into an ad for the (struggling) Doral golf resort, laying out all its positive aspects:

    It is big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms & meeting rooms, and each delegation would have its own 50 to 70 unit building. Would set up better than other alternatives.

    Trump, confused why it would appear a conflict of interest to host the most important people in the world at his property, then explained the he “would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA.” But, he added “as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY!”

    “Therefore”, Trump concluded, “based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately.”

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

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

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

    That said, if Trump was hoping that with this decision the media’s outrage would be diminished – if anything it will only validate that complaints and criticisms of Trump’s decision were justified. On the other hand, the media may have moved on: after all, the latest scandal involving Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard and the rest of the democrats in the primary race, all of whom appear to have picked a side in this bizarre catfight, just may allow the press to forget about Trump for a day or two, as Hillary Clinton decides whether she has enough public and media support to officially enter the race for president. Again.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 22:32

    Tags
    Politics

  • China Buying Boatloads Of Soybeans From Brazil After US Trade Talks
    China Buying Boatloads Of Soybeans From Brazil After US Trade Talks

    China ramped up Soybean purchases from Brazil last week, despite President Trump showboating a potential $50 billion agriculture deal with Beijing.

    Multiple traders told Reuters that Brazilian soybeans are more appealing to commercial importers, especially ones from China, who are looking for deep discounts. 

    As of last week, Beijing hasn’t lifted 25% tariffs on US soybeans nor granted new waivers to state-owned businesses, indicating that China isn’t ready to buy US agriculture products, as of late October. 

    China typically sources most of its soybeans from the US between October and January, then from South American countries in early 1Q. But this year, according to traders, as the trade war continues to escalate to the point of return, China is abandoning US markets despite positive sentiment from President Trump’s tweets.

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

    Since Monday, traders said China purchased eight bulk carrier cargoes of soybeans from Brazil, or about 480,000 tons, worth $173 million.  

    Brazil is China’s top soybean supplier, and Reuters made an interesting point, “large purchases from South America are unusual at this time of year with the US harvest coming in.” Translation: China isn’t buying US soybeans, so President Trump’s tweets about agriculture purchases are meaningless at the moment and are only used to calm fears of Midwest/Central US farmers. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Trump and his administration spent several weeks pumping headlines through different wirehouses and even on Twitter, about a breakthrough deal and massive agriculture purchases China was performing. 

    Three US soybean exporters told Reuters that China logged zero sales with the US last week, along with no transactions at the USDA.  

    “I’ve not had any inquiries at all for US (shipments),” said one of the US soybean exporters. “There were a few November boats bought from Brazil and several new-crop South American boats for March forward but nothing here.”

    Another US exporter said a drop in Brazilian soybean prices triggered boatloads of new purchases by China last week.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese state-owned firms COFCO and Sinograin, which are exempt from US tariffs, have no intention of purchasing US soybeans unless spot prices drop, said one of the exporters.

    After the Trump administration spent several weeks pumping the stock market on headlines describing China repurchasing soybeans, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Thursday finally admitted that for China to buy $50 billion worth of US agriculture good, it would depend on spot prices.

    On Tuesday, China said that it would struggle to buy $50 billion of US agriculture products if the Trump administration doesn’t remove retaliatory tariffs on some products. Something that President Trump cannot afford to do because it would allow China to continue its ascension as a global superpower. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 22:30

    Tags
    Business Finance
    Environment

  • 55 Ways To 'Starve The Beast'
    55 Ways To 'Starve The Beast'

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    A term coined in 1985 by an unnamed staffer of the Reagan administration was “Starve the Beast”.  This referred to a fiscally conservative political strategy to cut government spending by paying less in taxes.  So, in the original sense, “the Beast” was the government, and people were to starve said beast by spending less and using loopholes to pay less in taxes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now the Beast is a whole lot bigger.

    These days the Beast has a lot more tentacles than just the government.

    The system now consists of the government and all aspects of corporatism.  Big Agri, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Food, Big Banking, and Big Oil, to name a few.  It seems that now it’s the Beast that’s doing the starving, as small businesses close because they can’t compete with WalMart, bigger chains are run out of existence by Amazon, the family farm is on its way out because it can’t compete with the huge, subsidized mega-farms, and people are going bankrupt because they can’t pay the outrageous medical bills…

    These mega-corporations aren’t there to make our lives better or easier. They’re there to make as much money as possible and they’ll run you over if you get in their way.

    (Please note that there are Amazon links in this article to show you the books I recommend. You may be able to find these books from local sellers.)

    When I first wrote this article in 2013, Big Tech wasn’t quite as prevalent. I’ve added some recommendations from the comments over the years to expand this list.

    Perhaps more of us need to starve the beast.

    Is it convenient to starve the beast and avoid doing business with mega-corporations or to work around funding endless wars that kill and maim our young people while enriching the Military-Industrial Complex?

    No, but it’s time.

    It’s time for another financial revolution – one where people group together and use the power of the pocketbook to starve all the arms of this Beast that would swallow us whole.  If we vote with our dollars, eventually there will, of necessity, be a paradigm shift that returns us to simpler days, when families who were willing to work hard could make a living without selling their souls to the corporate monoliths.

    Every penny you spend with small local businesses is a penny that the big box stores won’t have.  Everything that you buy secondhand or barter for is an item on which you won’t pay sales tax.  Disassociate yourself completely with “the system” that is making Western civilization broke, overweight and unhealthy.

    Here are 55 ways to starve the Beast.

    Starve the Beast by taking as many of these steps as possible…

    1. Grow your own food.

    2. Shop at local businesses with no corporate ties.

    3. Use natural remedies instead of pharmaceuticals whenever possible.

    4. Homeschool your children. If you can’t homeschool, at the very least, spend time undoing the indoctrination by giving them the tools to think critically.

    5. Walk or bike instead of driving when you can.

    6. When possible, get care from naturopaths and healers instead of doctors.

    7. Make paper logs from scraps for free heat if you have a wood-burning fireplace or stove.

    8. Boycott all processed foods.

    9. Shop at local farmer’s markets or buy directly from the farms themselves.

    10. Don’t buy from corporate stores: Wal-Mart, Costco, Best Buy, Home Depot. Instead, pay a few extra dollars and buy from local vendors.

    11. Give vouchers as gifts for an evening of babysitting, a homemade meal, walking the dog, doing a repair, or cleaning

    12. Join a CSA or farm co-op

    13. Ditch television (and all the propaganda and commercials). If you want to view programs, enroll in a streaming service without commercials like Netflix.

    14. Participate in the barter system – although remember that even if no money changes hands, the government would like for you to let them know so you can be duly taxed.

    15. Buy secondhand from yard sales, Craigslist, and thrift stores

    16. Sell your own unwanted goods by having a yard sale or putting an ad on Craigslist

    17. Repair things instead of replacing them

    18. Avoid fast-food restaurants and chain restaurants

    19. Dine at locally owned establishments if you eat out.

    20. Brew your own beer and wine.

    21. Cook from scratch to avoid all those Big Food chemicals and additives.

    22. Grow or gather medicinal herbs.

    23. Give homemade gifts.

    24. Attend free local activities: lectures, concerts, play days at the park, library events.

    25. Dumpster dive and pick up things from the curb.

    26. Play outside: hike, bike, picnic.

    27. Mend clothing.

    28. Invite someone over for dinner instead of meeting at a chain restaurant.

    29. Throw creative birthday parties at home for your kids instead of renting a venue.

    30. Travel to other countries and note how most are not filled with mega-corporations, and local businesses still thrive.

    31. Bring your coffee with you in a travel mug.

    32. Do all of your Christmas shopping with small local businesses and artisans.

    33. Reduce your electricity usage with candles, solar power, and non-tech entertainment.

    34. Drop the thermostat and put on a sweater.

    35. Bring your snacks and drinks in a cooler when you go on a road trip.

    36. Stay home – it’s way easier to avoid temptations that way. Shopping should not be a form of entertainment.

    37. Pack lunches for work and school.

    38. Make delicious homemade treats as a hostess gift.

    39. Close your bank account or at the very least, strictly limit your balance.

    40. Visit u-pick berry patches and orchards, then preserve your harvest for the winter.

    41. Use precious metals stored at home as your savings account.

    42. Raise backyard chickens for your own eggs.

    43. If you are a smoker, roll your own cigarettes – if possible go one step further and grow tobacco.

    44. Brew your own beer, wine, and liquor.

    45. Use solar power for lighting or cooking.

    46. Collect rainwater for use in the garden

    47. Learn to forage.

    48. Buy heavy, solid, handmade furniture instead of the flimsy imported stuff

    49. At the holidays, focus on activities and traditions instead of gifts.

    50. Make your own bath and body products using pure ingredients like coconut oil, essential oils, and herbal extracts

    51. Use alternative social media.

    52. Get an old-fashioned flip phone while you still can.

    53. Drive an older car without GPS tracking.

    54. Use a VPN like ExpressVPN to keep your location information masked on your electronic devices.

    55. Avoid adding surveillance technology such as Ring or Nest to your home.

    Will these activities save America from corporatism and government overreach? Maybe not, but at least you’ll be doing your small part to rebel. Like David fighting Goliath, we are small but we are mighty enemies.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 22:00

  • "Get Over It": Trump Campaign Mocks Outrage Over Mulvaney Comments With T-Shirts
    "Get Over It": Trump Campaign Mocks Outrage Over Mulvaney Comments With T-Shirts

    The Trump campaign’s latest trolling (after selling plastic straws and “Where’s Hunter?” T-shirts) comes after acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters last week that there’s “going to be political influence in foreign policy,” suggesting that the media “get over it.” 

    In response, the Trump campaign turned Mulvaney’s comment into yet another T-shirt, as the rest of the media foused on his seeming admission that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. 

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

    “Did he also mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely,” Mulvaney told reporters. “No question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.” 

    This was quickly seized on by White House reporters, who said Mulvaney described a quid pro quo for holding up security assistance to Ukraine unless the country’s alleged involvement with the DNC server was investigated. 

    Mulvaney, later retracted his statement – saying “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 21:30

    Tags
    Politics

  • The Army Is Building A Cannon Capable Of Firing From Nashville To NYC
    The Army Is Building A Cannon Capable Of Firing From Nashville To NYC

    Authored by Elias Marat via TheMindUnleashed.com,

    The U.S. national defense budget is one of the most bloated in the world, with funding exceeding $1 trillion as the Pentagon and defense industry-friendly politicians seek to secure the unquestioned dominance of the U.S. Armed Forces across the globe.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, advances in the military-technical field by U.S. rivals like China and Russia – who have each developed advanced hypersonic deterrent weapons – have gripped U.S. war-planners with a feeling of insecurity over the state of the U.S. military’s overstocked arsenals, as well as a nagging sense that U.S. power is on the long-term decline.

    With that in mind, the U.S. army set about developing a brand-new weapon: a powerful cannon that can fire a projectile over a distance of more than 1,150 nautical miles – or the same distance between Nashville, Tennessee and New York City.

    The service branch hopes to demonstrate a prototype of the new super-cannon by 2023, after which it will be determined whether the cannon is worthy of undergoing further tests, Defense News reports.

    The Army is tackling the new project with the Research and Analysis Center at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, as well as the Center for Army Analysis “to confirm the service can accomplish what is expected from such a system,” Col. John Rafferty said.

    Before entering live trials, the program first has to pass through what Rafferty described as “big technology gates,” and one will be completed “very soon” in what is said to be an early ballistic test at a Virginia facility.

    The Army hopes that the new cannon can offer an edge on U.S. adversaries who have their own formidable defensive and deterrent capabilities. Rafferty believes that a U.S. strategy imbued with long-range air defense systems and artillery and coastal defense seamlessly integrated with long-range, over-the-horizon radars will be difficult to counter for U.S. foes.

    Rafferty explained:

    “That integrated system challenges even our most sophisticated aircraft and challenges our most sophisticated ships to gain access to the area.

    That layered enemy standoff at the strategic level was really the fundamental problem. One of the ways to solve that problem is to deliver surface-to-surface fires that can penetrate this [anti-access, area-denial] complex and disintegrate its network and create windows of opportunity for the joint force to exploit.”

    However, the key question is whether the new project can successfully enhance the Army’s capabilities without being too expensive—a key criteria for passing each of the technology gates.

    Rafferty added:

    “This idea of volume and affordability and lethality is first and foremost in our minds.”

    In a recent interview, Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville told Defense News:

    “A lot of that comes down to cost.

    If we are able to develop the strategic, long-range cannon system, the rounds may be only $400,000 or $500,000 compared to multimillion-dollar rounds.  Cost does matter, and we are concerned about cost.

    There are some, definitely, physics challenges in doing these types of things, and that is the trade-off.”

    The chief added that the Army is “trying to be innovative, but what they have to do is demonstrate the capability at each phase along the way. And if that doesn’t happen, we are not doing it.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 21:00

    Tags
    War Conflict

  • "There Is A Global Crisis" – Israel Diamond Industry Collapses Amid Faltering Demand 
    "There Is A Global Crisis" – Israel Diamond Industry Collapses Amid Faltering Demand 

    Macroeconomic headwinds are developing across the world. At least 90% of all countries are experiencing a slowdown in growth that has stumped central bankers and policymakers. No one at the moment can figure out how to restart the global economy. With the risk of a worldwide trade recession soaring for 2020, if not has already arrived, consumers are pulling back on spending, which has contributed to a collapse in the global diamond industry, something that we’ve been documenting this year. 

    The latest stress in the global diamond industry is emanating from Israel. Ynetnews is saying the country’s diamond exports have plunged 22%, a sign that consumer demand from Asia is faltering. 

    Trade data showed for the first three quarters of 2019, Israeli exports of diamonds were $2.62 billion, down from $3.32 billion during the same period last year.

    In 3Q19, imports and exports of diamonds by Israel plunged 28% YoY. 

    The Times of Israel blamed the downturn on the trade war and social unrest in Hong Kong. 

    Yoram Dvash, president of the Israel Diamond Exchange, told Ynetnews:

    “There is a global crisis. The government needs to help out the industry. Everywhere people are helping because they understand that there are difficulties now. Trump’s trade war with China and the Hong Kong protests really influence the industry. Hong Kong accounts for about 30% of our exports. The Hong Kong government said that in recent times, the sector that’s been damaged the most there has been the jewelry industry.”

    Dvash said Hong Kong jewelry shops, which import hundreds of millions of dollars of diamonds from Israel per year, have noticed collapsing demand from mainland China because of the social unrest and economic downturn in the region. 

    “Right now, the Chinese government isn’t granting visas to Chinese to go to Hong Kong in order to put pressure on business people there and hurt the economy. It’s paralyzing the number 2 diamond market in the world,” Dvash said.

    A source told Ynetnews that a credit crisis in India involving Indian diamond companies has negatively impacted the global industry.

    Earlier this month, De Beers’, one of the largest diamond exploration, diamond mining, and diamond retailing companies in the world, saw a 39% YoY drop in September sales. 

    A diamond analyst last month said markets remained oversupplied, resulting in weak global sales.

    “The current malaise in the market is due to oversupply,” said Paul Zimnisky, an analyst in New York, who said diamond buyers had too much inventory.

    Spot diamond prices on the IDEX Diamond Index shows how oversupplied conditions have weighed down prices in the last 8 months.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    And while diamonds are supposed to “a girl’s best friend”, recent months have seen gold the preferred shiny thing of choice…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Shares in Signet, the world’s largest retailer of diamond jewelry, have crashed 89% in the last four years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It appears a diamond crisis is unfolding, and this is what usually happens right before a global recession, a sign that the consumer can no longer power the global economy. Turmoil is ahead.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/19/2019 – 20:30

    Tags
    Business Finance

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 19

Today’s News 19th October 2019

  • 6 Warning Signs That Civil Unrest Is Imminent
    6 Warning Signs That Civil Unrest Is Imminent

    Authored by J.G.Martinez D. via The Organic Prepper blog,

    This week has been “interesting” in South America. Interesting, indeed, but as in the ancient Chinese curse style.

    For those of us in this side of the hemisphere, having been able to witness first-hand, in the front line, how the very same plot that made us get the heck out of our country, is unleashing a vendetta against the countries that have received us Venezuelans.

    I know geopolitical issues are not the intention of this blog, but please, allow me to continue. It will be necessary to establish a context of the circumstances. This vendetta I mentioned, has the exact same features that Fidel Castro once sent to Miami, from Mariel, in Cuba (a pilot test?). President Moreno has accused directly to Maduro of sending hidden terrorists, camouflaged between the refugees. For those readers interested that maybe are going to buy the book Daisy and I are writing, you will find a direct relationship between travels of communist leaders to South America, and civilian turmoil generated within a suspiciously short time frame after their “visit”. This is not the only indicator of troubles, indeed. If we remember, in 1988 the Venezuelan president Carlos Andres Perez invited Fidel to his ceremony of possession. Some people who were there informed that a significant part of the companions of Fidel for that ceremony did not come back to Cuba. They stayed in Venezuela.

    This said, it is not hard to suppose what kind of influence these “visitors” had in the 1989 coup d’etat. The incredible violence unleashed in the cities was something totally unexpected, and rarely seen in a country such as Venezuela. For more details, you will read about it in the book, with some testimonies of friends and acquaintances, and some anecdotic data. I was like 15 at the time and remember everything as it was yesterday.

    The objective, finally, of this article is getting to the reader accustomed to this idea: civilian turmoil presents so suddenly that maybe the only option you will have is to bug in.

    A couple of weeks ago, everything was so quiet in Ecuador that it was even boring. Don’t believe me? Watch the news. A few days ago, a violent mob kicked out the police out of their way and invaded the National Assembly (something very similar, indeed to what happened in Venezuela).

    A very volatile situation is brewing in all of South America.

    Countries that had been relatively peaceful are now (thanks to the hidden terrorists sent by the Maduro regime) a powder barrel. The timing could not be worst for me and my reduced family group. An old illness has come back and I´m struggling to recover at least partially before things get worst. Fortunately, we are in a popular neighborhood where there are lots of Venezuelans, and the people renting me have no complains because I´ve been quite a good tenant: no noises, paying on time (thanks to my extreme frugality and the generosity of a few readers, I have to acknowledge). They are a senior couple and hardly would allow me to get hurt by an angry mob or someone of my family. However, I´m ready to defend myself and mines.

    OK, here´s the thing. Maybe you can have some indications in the nearby days about how bad things can get, all of a sudden. You won´t even notice it until you´re in the middle. If you don´t believe me just ask to Ecuadorians. They were caught in the middle of a geopolitical storm stirred from abroad. Looting, empty shelves as a result, and half of the country blocked because of the mobs. Tear gas, and shootings. Three young men thrown from a bridge by other angry enemies. Things like this happen when people are exposed, and unaware.

    I want to tell you something. I’m not in my better moment these days. But every time I need to go outside for some reason, I do it with the firm, strong idea in my mind, of defending myself and my family (and the means to do it). Being partially impeded, defense will have to be lightning quick and disabling. No mercy and I am sorry about this, but it’s true. It’s the survivor’s mind setup clicking in since I saw the chain of events. Facing the law afterward? Sure, as much as the taken down predators face it too. There is footage of an angry mob (identified with leftist guerrilla colors by the way) beating with batons innocent people inside a building. Same as Germany in the 30s. Jeez.

    If for some reason in the future these few paragraphs save your life or someone’s you love, I will feel rewarded.

    Although our exposition to xenophobic behavior has been minimal, I´m pretty aware how bad things can get under the current social climate. Therefore, signals definitely can´t be ignored. Every society of the world, unfortunately, seems to have the potential for civilian turmoil, and the possibility of the appearance of more or less organized gangs of marauders NEVER can be dismissed. (I´m sorry Canada, never been there but maybe even you have some percentage of this happening somewhere in the future).

    Here are 6 signs that civilian unrest is impending or already occurring.

    The first sign, of course, is bad looks when you walk on the street. Small groups of people (especially young men) staring at you? Don´t show fear, but leave the place fast, and find a safe spot. A shop, a restaurant, someplace with guards, preferably. If you´re classified as a “vulnerable” inhabitant (a migrant, ethnical minority, etc.) you know what I´m talking about. Don´t expose yourself and become gray. No one will open an investigation until much time afterwards an attack under these circumstances. And what we want to avoid is an attack.

    The second sign, perhaps this is more subtle, when you see people that normally would be polite or indifferent, as a minimum, starts to look at you in sort of aggressive manner. It´s surprising the number of women from a certain age up that have insulted and been racist with Venezuelans in some countries. (Well maybe surprising for some single people…not as much for me already anyway LOL)

    The third sign, of course, is people disappearing off the streets. I think one of my worst nightmares would be to be walking with my kid in middle downtown, and suddenly to find ourselves roaming in deserted streets because there is an aggressive gang coming and you can´t see it. One of my friends was caught in the middle of the coup d’etat to Rafael Correa a few years ago in Ecuador, and when he finally could arrive at the hostel he supposed to have booked in, the lady running the place kick his suitcase by the stairs, closed the door and never opened. Go figure. A Venezuelan never would have treated someone like that, and I am proud to say this.

    The fourth sign is (obviously) Law Enforcement Officials (LEOs) presence in massive amounts in the streets. Any kind of uniform is a strong indication of expected turmoil. Find cover.

    The fifth sign in modern times would be (because in the demonstrations the uniforms used it massively to identify potential groups as a target) drones flying close to some blockage or LEOs control point. And I know this because people who took part in the demonstrations informed me. Everything was peaceful, and after they saw the drones, minutes later all hells broke lose.

    The sixth sign, and the last one, is when you start seeing people wearing a single color. All in black, or all in white, or all sharing a bandana, or some symbol that indicates they are part of a group.

    Be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones.

    This said, the logical protection measures have to be taken: carry a baton, disguised as a cane. This will work better if one can simulate a limp or something. That´s my first choice. The second one (depending on the laws of the area) would be a concealed knife. A small brown paper brown with a loaf of bread, a peach or apple and some cheese could be useful to explain why we are carrying this, just in case. This would be in my briefcase. I walk decently dressed, but not too much that I call the attention. For some reason I think that someone in a cheap jacket could be attacked by a racist mob faster than someone dressed up with a suit (maybe think one can be a lawyer?).

    Any other blunt weapon that can be concealed should work. Be creative. Nunchukus (for those that have practiced martial arts like me) can be easily concealed under loose gym pants, for instance.

    But the best protection is exposing yourself as little as possible. This is what I like the most of home-based jobs. An old friend complained about crime rate being so high…but he was a young man in his low 30s and loved partying all night long as a male cat….That saddlebag comes with the horse when you buy it, fellow!


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 23:45

  • Office Vacancies In China Hit Decade High Amid Economic Turmoil
    Office Vacancies In China Hit Decade High Amid Economic Turmoil

    A darkening outlook for China’s economy continues to materialize week by week.

    New data from commercial property group CBRE warns the country’s office vacancy rate has just surged to the highest since the financial crisis of 2007–2008, first reported by Bloomberg.

    CBRE said the vacancy rate for commercial office space in 17 major cities rose to 21.5% in 3Q19, a level not seen since the global economy was melting down in 2008.

    Sam Xie, CBRE’s head of research in China, said the recent “spike” in vacancies is one of the worst since the last financial crisis.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Catherine Chen, Cushman & Wakefield’s head of research for Greater China, told Financial Times that soaring commercial office vacancies in China was mainly due to dwindling demand, but not oversupplied conditions.

    “Contributing factors included slower expansion of co-working operators and financial services companies, and a general cost-saving strategy adopted by most tenants given ongoing trade tensions and economic growth slowdown,” she added.

    Henry Chin, head of research for Asia Pacific at CBRE, told Financial Times that macroeconomic headwinds relating to the trade war between the US and China were also a significant factor in rising office vacancies.

    As shown in the Bloomberg chart below, using CBRE data, Shanghai and Shenzhen had the highest office vacancies than any other city, and both had around 20% of office spaces dormant.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And with the global economy in a synchronized slowdown, global growth estimates are now printing at 3%, the slowest pace since the financial crisis. The Chinese economy will likely continue to slow, and could see domestic growth under 6% this year. This suggests that China’s office space vacancies will continue to rise through year-end.Office Vacancies In China Hit Decade High Amid Economic Turmoil


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 23:25

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • Terrorized, Traumatized, & Terminated: The Police State's Deadly Toll On America's Children
    Terrorized, Traumatized, & Terminated: The Police State’s Deadly Toll On America’s Children

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Mommy, am I gonna die?”— 4-year-old Ava Ellis after being inadvertently shot in the leg by a police officer who was aiming for the girl’s boxer-terrier dog, Patches

    “‘Am I going to get shot again.’”—2-year-old survivor of a police shooting that left his three siblings, ages 1, 4 and 5, with a bullet in the brain, a fractured skull and gun wounds to the face

    Children learn what they live.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As family counselor Dorothy Law Nolte wisely observed, “If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn. If children live with hostility, they learn to fight. If children live with fear, they learn to be apprehensive.”

    And if children live with terror, trauma and violence – forced to watch helplessly as their loved ones are executed by police officers who shoot first and ask questions later – will they in turn learn to terrorize, traumatize and inflict violence on the world around them?

    I’m not willing to risk it. Are you?

    It’s difficult enough raising a child in a world ravaged by war, disease, poverty and hate, but when you add the toxic stress of the police state into the mix, it becomes near impossible to protect children from the growing unease that some of the monsters of our age come dressed in government uniforms.

    Case in point: in Hugo, Oklahoma, plain clothes police officers opened fire on a pickup truck parked in front of a food bank, heedless of the damage such a hail of bullets—26 shots were fired—could have on those in the vicinity. Three of the four children inside the parked vehicle were shot: a 4-year-old girl was shot in the head and ended up with a bullet in the brain; a 5-year-old boy received a skull fracture; and a 1-year-old girl had deep cuts on her face from gunfire or shattered window glass. Only the 2-year-old was spared any physical harm, although the terror will likely linger for a long time. “They are terrified to go anywhere or hear anything,” the family attorney said. “The two-year-old keeps asking about ‘Am I going to get shot again.’”

    The reason for the use of such excessive force?

    Police were searching for a suspect in a weeks-old robbery of a pizza parlor that netted $400.

    While the two officers involved in the shooting are pulling paid leave at taxpayer expense, the children’s mother is struggling to figure out how to care for her wounded family and pay the medical expenses, including the cost to transport each child in a separate medical helicopter to a nearby hospital: $75,000 for one child’s transport alone.

    This may be the worst use of excessive force on innocent children to date. Unfortunately, it is one of many in a steady stream of cases that speak to the need for police to de-escalate their tactics and stop resorting to excessive force when less lethal means are available to them.

    For instance, in Cleveland, police shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice who was seen playing on a playground with a pellet gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy two seconds after getting out of a moving patrol car. Incredibly, the shooting was deemed “reasonable” and “justified” by two law enforcement experts who concluded that the police use of force “did not violate Tamir’s constitutional rights.”

    In Detroit, 7-year-old Aiyana Jones was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family’s apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops were in the wrong apartment.

    In Georgia, a SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old’s crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving the child with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.

    Also in Georgia, 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt was shot by a police officer who aimed for an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy instead.

    In Ohio, police shot 4-year-old Ava Ellis in the leg, shattering the bone, after being dispatched to assist the girl’s mother, who had cut her arm and was in need of a paramedic. Cops claimed that the family pet charged the officer who was approaching the house, causing him to fire his gun and accidentally hit the little girl.

    In California, 13-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a police officer who mistook the boy’s toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the remote control in Roupe’s hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.

    These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government’s endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves.

    Then you have the growing number of incidents involving children who are forced to watch helplessly as trigger-happy police open fire on loved ones and community members alike.

    In Texas, an 8-year-old boy watched as police—dispatched to do a welfare check on a home with its windows open—shot and killed his aunt through her bedroom window while she was playing video games with him.

    In Minnesota, a 4-year-old girl watched from the backseat of a car as cops shot and killed her mother’s boyfriend, Philando Castile, a school cafeteria supervisor, during a routine traffic stop merely because Castile disclosed that he had a gun in his possession, for which he had a lawful conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times as he was reaching for his license and registration. 

    In Arizona, a 7-year-old girl watched panic-stricken as a state trooper pointed his gun at her and her father during a traffic stop and reportedly threated to shoot her father in the back (twice) based on the mistaken belief that they were driving a stolen rental car.

    In Oklahoma, a 5-year-old boy watched as a police officer used a high-powered rifle to shoot his dog Opie multiple times in his family’s backyard while other children were also present. The police officer was mistakenly attempting to deliver a warrant on a 10-year-old case for someone who hadn’t lived at that address in a decade.

    A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family’s house, shot the family’s dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to “sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour.” They later claimed it was the wrong house.

    More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.

    A child doesn’t even have to be directly exposed to a police shooting to learn the police state’s lessons in compliance and terror, which are being meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.

    Indeed, there can be no avoiding the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills and school-wide lockdowns to incidents in which children engaging in typically childlike behavior are suspended (for shooting an imaginary “arrow” at a fellow classmate), handcuffed (for being disruptive at school), arrested (for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank), and even tasered (for not obeying instructions).

    For example, a middle school in Washington State went on lockdown after a student brought a toy gun to class. A Boston high school went into lockdown for four hours after a bullet was discovered in a classroom. A North Carolina elementary school locked down and called in police after a fifth grader reported seeing an unfamiliar man in the school (it turned out to be a parent).

    Cops have even gone so far as to fire blanks during school active shooter drills around the country. Teachers at one elementary school in Indiana were actually shot “execution style” with plastic pellets. Students at a high school in Florida were so terrified after administrators tricked them into believing that a shooter drill was, in fact, an actual attack that some of them began texting their parents “goodbye.”

    Better safe than sorry is the rationale offered to those who worry that these drills are terrorizing and traumatizing young children. As journalist Dahlia Lithwick points out: “I don’t recall any serious national public dialogue about lockdown protocols or how they became the norm. It seems simply to have begun, modeling itself on the lockdowns that occur during prison riots, and then spread until school lockdowns and lockdown drills are as common for our children as fire drills, and as routine as duck-and-cover drills were in the 1950s.”

    These drills have, indeed, become routine.

    As the New York Times reports: “Most states have passed laws requiring schools to devise safety plans, and several states, including Michigan, Kentucky and North Dakota, specifically require lockdown drills. Some drills are as simple as a principal making an announcement and students sitting quietly in a darkened classroom. At other schools, police officers and school officials playact a shooting, stalking through the halls like gunmen and testing whether doors have been locked.”

    Police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.

    What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards.

    If these exercises are intended to instill fear, paranoia and compliance into young people, they’re working.

    As Joe Pinsker writes for The Atlantic:

    These lockdowns can be scarring, causing some kids to cry and wet themselves. Others have written letters bidding their family goodbye or drafted wills that specify what to do with their belongings. And 57 percent of teens worry that a shooting will happen at their school, according to a Pew Research Center survey from last year. Though many children are no strangers to violence in their homes and communities, the pervasiveness of lockdowns and school-shooting drills in the U.S. has created a culture of fear that touches nearly every child across the country.

    Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such “exercises” can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment—a microcosm of the police state—has on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped.

    As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorker reports:

    Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn’t even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, “I’m going to lock you up! I’m going to lock you up, and you ain’t never coming home!” I once saw a six-year-old pull another child’s pants down to do a “cavity search.”

    Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it’s not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and “we the people” are the masters, and they are to be our servants.

    Now that philosophy has been turned on its head, fueled by our fears (some legitimate, some hyped along by the government and its media mouthpieces) about the terrors and terrorists that lurk among us.

    What are we to tell our nation’s children about the role of police in their lives?

    Do we parrot the government line that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do we caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?

    Certainly, it’s getting harder by the day to insist that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law.

    Yet unless something changes and soon, there will soon be nothing left to teach young people about freedom as we have known it beyond remembered stories of the “good old days.”

    For starters, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s time to take a hard look at the greatest perpetrators of violence in our culture—the U.S. government and its agents—and do something about it: de-militarize the police, prohibit the Pentagon from distributing military weapons to domestic police agencies, train the police in de-escalation techniques, stop insulating police officers from charges of misconduct and wrongdoing, and require police to take precautionary steps before engaging in violence in the presence of young people.

    We must stop the carnage.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 23:05

  • Japan To Send Its Own Military Force To Strait Of Hormuz
    Japan To Send Its Own Military Force To Strait Of Hormuz

    Ever since the new round of ‘tanker wars’ began in Strait of Hormuz in mid-June with a mysterious mine attack on multiple tankers, one involving a Japanese-owned ship, Tokyo has reportedly mulled sending a Japanese defense force to the area to help protect vital shipping lanes. 

    In a rare move, the pacifist nation appears ready to pull the trigger, as FT reports, citing chief cabinet secretary, Yoshihide Suga, who indicated that “the government was planning to deploy forces in a region where a Japanese tanker, the Kokuka Courageous, was recently attacked with a limpet mine.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Japanese Defense Forces file image.

    Japan’s Asahi newspaper also reported that the self-defense troop deployment to the vital Persian Gulf passage way comes “instead of joining the U.S.-coalition”.

    Japan had been among many US allies urged to assist in forming a US-led maritime security patrol — a plan which many feared would only exacerbate tensions with Iran, only leading to war. In not joining the US-led security mission, Tokyo is ensuring it won’t damage important economic ties with Iran.

    FT describes what such a Japanese expedition will likely involve:

    A Japanese expedition would probably involve ships and aircraft from the Maritime Self-Defense Force. [Chief Cabinet Secretary] Mr Suga said its operations would be limited to international waters in the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea and the Bab al-Mandab strait.

    He said the dispatch would take place under provisions of Japanese law allowing for military information gathering and research. The pacifist constitution tightly proscribes how Japan can deploy its military and any ships it sends would use force only in self-defense.

    Suga said further, “At present, there is no direct need for the protection of Japanese vessels by Self-Defense Force assets, but in any event, we’ll consider what further measures are necessary for the security of ships linked to our country.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Earlier this month Defense Minister Taro Kono, while addressing the rising tensions between Western powers and Iran in the Persian Gulf, acknowledged that “80 percent of Japan’s crude oil imports come through the Strait of Hormuz.”

    After he spoke to his Iranian counterpart by phone at the time, the defense minister told reporters: “The stability of the region is directly connected to Japan’s energy security.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 22:45

    Tags
    Politics

  • Why Is The Elitist Establishment So Obsessed With Meat?
    Why Is The Elitist Establishment So Obsessed With Meat?

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    I don’t know how many people have noticed this, but in the past three months it has been impossible for a person to throw a beef burger patty in any direction on the compass without hitting a news article on the “destructive effects” of the meat industry in terms of “climate change”.  There’s also been endless mainstream articles on the supposedly vast health benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet. This narrative has culminated in a tidal wave of stories about vegetable-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and their rise to stock market stardom. The word on the street is, meat based diets are going the way of the Dodo, and soon, by environmental necessity, we will ALL be vegetarians.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For at least the past ten years the United Nations has been aggressively promoting the concept of a meat free world, based on claims that accelerated land use and greenhouse gas emissions are killing the Earth. In the west, militant leftists with dreams of a socialist Utopia have adopted a kind of manifesto in the Green New Deal, and an integral part of their agenda is the end to the availability of meat to the common man (it’s interesting the Green New Deal agenda matches almost perfectly with the UN’s Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030). Some of these elitists have argued in favor of heavy taxation on meat products to reduce public consumption; others have argued for an outright ban.

    The problem with this dietary revolution is that it is based primarily on junk science and cherry-picked data, along with outright lies and propaganda. The majority of studies and articles covering this issue are decidedly biased, left leaning and collectivist in nature. Now, I plan to touch on this issue, but what I really want to focus on is the “WHY” of the matter – Why are the elites targeting human meat consumption, and why are they willing to lie about its effects in order to get us to abandon our burgers and steaks? What is the real agenda here…?

    First, lets tackle the climate change issue. The UN claims that human food production must change drastically in order to stop global warming and damage to the environment, and these changes must focus mainly on meat production and ‘methane gases’. In other words, they assert that cow farts are killing the planet. This is a rather convenient story for the elites as they push their carbon taxation agenda. It seems everything we do as humans must be monitored, restricted or taxed, from breathing to procreating to eating meat, otherwise the Earth is “doomed”.

    In past articles I have written extensively on the direct ties between the UN’s global warming hysteria and the push for global government. In particular, I’ve mentioned the writings of former UN assistant secretary general Robert Muller. In his manifesto collected on a website titled “Good Morning World”, Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of “protecting the Earth” and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental Apocalypse, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary nanny state to keep society from destroying itself.

    Muller initiated such programs in the early 1990’s, which were similar in tone to the Club Of Rome think tank, a group of consultants to the UN which called for a stop to human population growth. In their white paper titled ‘The First Global Revolution’, the Club of Rome stated:

    “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

    The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.

    From public admissions from UN officials and the Club Of Rome, we can see that climate change is a narrative driven by ideology, not science, and that the real goal is global governance, not saving the planet. As for the “science” these ideologues say supports their demands, there is none.

    There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the claim that a cause and effect link between carbon emissions and rising temperatures exists. In fact, there is more evidence to show that the reverse is true – that higher temperatures result in greater animal populations and thus more carbon emissions and thus more food for vegetation. Ask any global warming “expert” from the NOAA, NASA or the IPCC what percentage of a temperature increase is caused by cars versus cows and what evidence there is to support their assertions? They won’t be able to produce an answer.

    They will simply claim that the evidence is irrefutable because the temperatures are rising and so are carbon levels. In other words, their argument is that correlation always equals causation. But are temperatures really rising? What if the entire basis for global warming hysteria is fabricated?

    The NOAA has been caught on multiple occasions doing just that. By going back to previously recorded temperature stats and tweaking them to make them lower, the NOAA then makes it appear as though the Earth is warming in a historic trend. However, the unaltered temperature record shows that the Earth has always had warming periods which run in natural cycles, followed by cooling and using tracking increased solar activity. You know that giant nuclear reactor in the sky that is 1.3 million times bigger Earth? Yeah, it has a lot more to do with the Earth’s climate patterns than cow farts do…

    If one compares NOAA data on temperature changes over the past century from 1999 to the data the NOAA has released over the past few years, it is easy to see the adjustments they made to their own older data in order to make it appear as though steady global warming is taking place. The NOAA’s changes also make it appear as though temperature changes are closely tracking rising carbon emissions.

    Here we see the climate change hoax in action, as well as the UN and the Club Of Rome conspiracy to engineer an environmental threat that will provide a rationale for global government. But what does all this have to do with meat?

    The climate change myth is simply a means to multiple ends.

    And, one of the things the elites are using it to unravel is society’s eating habits. The purpose behind the war on meat is less clear, but I do have some theories based on historical evidence as well as scientific evidence that shows ruling oligarchies have always tried to restrict meat consumption by the “peasant class” whenever possible.

    In feudal Europe in the middle ages, the presence of meat in a diet was rare for the peasant class. Farm animals were strictly controlled property, given to peasant farmers as tools for working the land, not for eating. Hunting wild game was difficult as the ruling royal families often claimed ownership of all the best hunting grounds within the country. After multiple peasant revolts, such as the Great Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 in England, the elites banned hunting parties, as they were suspected of being used as cover for peasants to train in military tactics and to plan rebellions.

    Peasants caught poaching “the king’s deer” were punished severely – this including hanging, castration, blinding and being sewn into a deer carcass and chased down by ferocious dogs.

    This did not stop peasants from eating meat at times though. When possible they would eat small game. But their diets consisted primarily of pottage and porridge made from grains, beans and root vegetables, along with black rye bread.  Going into the middle ages onward, researchers will find that for the serfs and the poor, a meat dinner was treated as a special event.

    In feudal Japan, meat eating, not just hunting, was specifically banned for over 1000 years, starting in 675 AD. The ban was based on the melding of Buddhist beliefs and Shinto. Of course, while the law was enforced for peasants, the elite ruling class and the samurai warrior class never actually gave meat up. Meat was often eaten by the elites, under the auspices of improving health. When given as a gift to a feudal lord, pickled meats were labeled “medicine” in order to avoid open defiance of the laws.

    This selective ban continued until Europeans arrived on Japanese shores, and the reintroduction of meat dishes began to spread. By the late 1800’s the meat ban was officially lifted. It was believed by the Japanese of the era that Westerners had superior physiques because of their meat based diets, and that Japanese physiques had been subdued by their vegetable and grain based diets. There is some truth to this observation.

    Today, the vegetarian ideology is not a stand-alone philosophy.  It is tied inexorably to other ideologies such as socialism, globalism and extremist forms of environmentalism. There are very few vegetarian promoters that are not politically motivated. This has caused a rash of propaganda, attempting to rewrite the history of the human diet to fit their bizarre narrative.

    Even though human beings have been omnivores for millions of years, the anti-meat campaign claims that humans were actually long time vegetarians. They do this by comparing humans to our closest evolutionary relatives, like chimpanzees and gorillas, and arguing that these animals have a strict vegetable diet (which is not exactly true).

    Of course, Native American tribes, living closest to how our prehistoric ancestors lived long ago, had meat heavy diets, but don’t expect the environmentalists to accept this reality. What they conveniently do not mention is that over 2 million years ago human ancestors broke from their vegetable diet and began eating meat. Not only this, but the diet changed our very physical makeup. We grew far stronger, and smarter.

    Yes, that’s right, the rise of meat in the human diet tracks almost exactly with the rise of human intelligence and advances in tools and technology.

    Vegetarian and vegan diets have been shown to lower overall IQ due to lack of nutrients required for brain health. This is because the human brain NEEDS fatty acids such as Omega 3 which is only found in saturated fats in meats. There is no substitute in the plant world. Saturated fats from animal protein have been shown to increase cognitive function as well as memory.

    The brain uses almost 20% of the human body’s calorie intake in order to function, and much of this intake requires saturated fats and even cholesterol. Contrary to decades of misinformation, animal fats are good for you.  Pro athletes also must often revert to a meat based diet in order to build up superior muscle structure, and another factor which is rarely mentioned is the increase in estrogen-like compounds in plant based foods (mainly soy), which can reduce testosterone.

    And here we get to the crux of the issue. It is perhaps by mere coincidence, or perhaps just observation on the part of elitist dynasties, but meat consumption has always been connected with an unruly peasant class. This is because meat eating contributes directly to greater cognitive function, as well as better memory and muscle mass.

    While much is discussed about how artificial meat like Beyond Meat has effectively copied the taste or appearance of a normal hamburger, very little is discussed about what it is lacking. Beyond meat has zero cholesterol and no amino acids or fatty acids like Omega 3 or vitamins like B12. It uses coconut oil to mimic saturated animal fats, which does not duplicate the animal fat value to the human brain or body. Essentially, a Beyond Meat burger is designed to copy the taste of a burger without any of the benefits.

    My theory? That meat is a cognitive enhancer as well as a strength enhancer and the elites at the UN and other globalists organizations are seeking to remove it from our diet based on lies because such a change could contribute to a dumber and weaker population that would be easier to control.

    Fake meat is also highly processed and uses a complicated method to mimic beef protein structures. It can only be created in a lab and mass produced in a factory. You will never be able to make your own Beyond Meat burger. Meaning, by banning or taxing meat into oblivion and replacing it with an industrial substitute, the establishment will have made society effectively dependent on them for a significant portion of their dietary needs. Not only do they hope to make us dumber and weaker, they also hope to make us desperately dependent.

    *  *  *

    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, 10/18/2019 – 22:25

    Tags
    Environment

  • China Bans Exports Of Black Clothing To Hong Kong Amid Escalating Social Unrest
    China Bans Exports Of Black Clothing To Hong Kong Amid Escalating Social Unrest

    Over the last 24 hours, several reports have surfaced, one from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), and another from Reuters, are now detailing new export bans that Beijing has enacted from mainland China to Hong Kong, which explicitly states shipping couriers and or customs will halt all black clothing and other items used by pro-democracy protesters.

    Service workers at China’s top shipping couriers (STO Express, ZTO Express, and YTO Express) told Reuters this week that China banned bulk shipments of black clothing from mainland China to Hong Kong late last month.

    One worker from STO Express told Reuters that black clothing, five items or less, could be shipped from mainland China to Hong Kong, but any more would be considered bulk and would be returned to the sender.

    He said bulk items of masks, riot gear, umbrellas, helmets, and sticks, were also on the export ban list.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    SCMP obtained a notice from Guangdong shipper PHXBUY that read any items shipped from mainland China to Hong Kong that includes “yellow helmets, yellow umbrellas, flags, flagpoles, poster banners, gloves, masks, black T-shirts, metal rods, fluorescent tubes, bludgeon clubs” would be rejected on site. If the sender uses a false name, the government would be inclined to launch an investigation.

    Another notice SCMP received was from Guangdong shipper EXPRESS, which showed a more in-depth list of exports banned from mainland China to Hong Kong, the list read: “foodstuffs, liquid, powder, gases, counterfeit brand products, big machines, helmets, umbrellas, wrist bands, towels, safety vests, speakers, amplifiers, trestles, walkie-talkies, drones, black shirts and other clothing, goggles, metal beads, metal balls, horticulture scissors, metal chains, torches, binoculars, remote-controlled toys.”

    Beijing, which has condemned the protests in Hong Kong, has taken quick measures to assure the unrest doesn’t escalate further.

    Besides an export ban on items used by rioters, Beijing has also moved in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces into Hong Kong, a move seen by some that could mean a complete shutdown of the city is imminent.

    As demonstrations continue to spiral out of control, pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong heavily rely on China for gear, whether it’s black clothing, lasers, gas masks, drones, and or fireworks, it seems that China clamping down on exports to Hong Kong could result in more extensive crackdowns in the near term.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 22:05

  • Medicare-For-All Is A Plot To Pillage You
    Medicare-For-All Is A Plot To Pillage You

    Authored by Veronique de Rugy via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    Medicare-For-All (M4A) is gaining some steam. Two prominent Democratic candidates for the presidency, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, support it, and several polls show that the idea is supported also by a majority of Americans. 

    In recent days, two academics from U.C.-Berkeley have even argued that a transition to M4A from the current system would dramatically cut taxes for the majority of workers by replacing all insurance premiums with taxes based on ability to pay.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That outcome sounds great until you ask how we will pay for it. According to a new study by the Urban Institute, M4A will cost $32 trillion over ten years. This estimate is in line with that of my colleague Charles Blahous. That’s more than the federal government will be projected to pay over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections. According to Urban, you could reduce the damage down to $16 trillion with some cost sharing and some limits on benefits. Either way, that’s a lot of money. 

    As Brian Riedl notes recently,  one of the ideas floating around is that we simply need to come up with a $35 trillion tax to pay for it all (I am not kidding). He writes, “Proponents [of M4A] assert that the $35 trillion that families and businesses are currently projected to pay over the next decade in health premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and state taxes to fund Medicaid would all be replaced with a $35 trillion federal ‘single-payer tax….”  

    Yet we have no details of how that would work in practice, and no one who supports M4A so far has offered an actual plan for the elusive $35 trillion replacement tax. Riedl writes, “Congressional Budget Office data show that raising $35 trillion would require a payroll tax increase of 39 percentage points, or a value-added tax of 91 percent – an enormous burden even for families no longer paying premiums.”

    The scale of the tax hike it would require probably explains why no one wants to talk about it seriously. During the last Democratic debate, Senator Sanders acknowledged that it would require raising taxes on the middle class. He said, “At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills. But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up.” But he has failed to give us any details about which taxes will go up and by how much and his campaign has only pointed out some options to pay for part of this extra government spending.

    Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren has vehemently refused to say if the middle class would see its taxes go up to pay for M4A or how she would pay for this. As the Wall Street Journal reported, for instance, during the debate Ms. Warren, the new leader in the polls, was given at least six chances to answer yes or no. She ducked every time. “Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, yes or no?” asked one of the media questioners.” The Journal continues, Ms. Warren replied:

    “So I have made clear what my principles are here, and that is costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard-working middle-class families, costs will go down.”

    Later on she added, “Costs are going to go up for the wealthy,” and “costs will go down for hard-working, middle-class families.”

    Got it; costs will go down for some and costs will go up for others. Yet we still have no clue just who will pay for what and how much the bill will be. Even those Berkeley professors won’t tell us how to pay for it. They have mentioned having a plan for some taxes as replacement of the cost of the employer side of insurance premiums. But, if this was even doable, it may raise between $10 trillion to $18 trillion (depending on how you measure it) of the $32 trillion. 

    While Warren doesn’t want to talk about, we can still do the calculation for her. 

    For one thing, she has been open about paying for all her new spending ideas with a wealth tax on the rich, a corporate surtax, an increase in the estate tax, and the elimination of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts. Her wealth tax would raise, she claims, $2.75 trillion over ten years. Reversing the tax cuts would raise revenue by another roughly $2 trillion over ten years. You can add to that another $3 trillion that her campaign says she will raise through other taxes on the rich. 

    However, once you spend $32 trillion on M4A, $1.07 trillion for universal childcare, $610 billion for free college, $640 billion for eliminating student debt, $100 billion to combat the opioid crisis, and some other smaller programs, you are still left with a $30 trillion gap. 

    That’s 30,000,000,000,000 over ten years. It also ignores the deadweight losses of all this spending and new taxes on top of their inability to truly raise as much revenue as planned.

    The bottom line is this: while M4A is getting a lot of favorable attention these days, proponents will continue to tout the benefits of a reform that lowers costs for some, while staying as far as they can from actually proposing a way to pay for it. But as PJ O’ Rourke famously said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 21:45

    Tags
    Social Issues

  • 'WhatsApp Revolution' Protests In Lebanon Turn Violent With Fires, Road Blocks; Multiple Dead & Wounded
    ‘WhatsApp Revolution’ Protests In Lebanon Turn Violent With Fires, Road Blocks; Multiple Dead & Wounded

    Lebanon erupted in large-scale ‘Arab Spring’ style protests starting Thursday night into Friday, marked by number of massive fires and makeshift roadblocks which could be seen going up in Beirut, in what international reports are calling the biggest cross-sectarian anti-government uprising in years. At least two bystanders have died, one protester killed, and over 60 police wounded. 

    The protests were reportedly triggered based on the announcement of a legislative bill to tax people $6 a month for using the popular WhatApp messaging platform, but have grown into broader demands that political leaders step aside over the country’s worsening economic crisis and lack of jobs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Protests outside Beirut, via AFP/Getty/CNN

    For this reason Lebanese daily al-Akhbar dubbed the protests “the WhatsApp revolution” and with others calling it “a tax intifada”. Chants could be heard in Arabic of “the people want the downfall of the regime” from crowds described as containing a broad cross-section of Lebanese society, whether Christian, Sunni or Shia. 

    Police clashed with thousands of demonstrators in Beirut throughout Friday who lit tires on fire and in some cases charged government buildings and damaged shop-fronts.

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

    Multiple reports have put Lebanese unemployment among those aged under 35 at a staggering 37%.

    At the same time Lebanese political leaders have been broadly accused of dipping into public coffers to enrich themselves and entrench their positions.

    Tensions were already high when on Thursday a government minister revealed a plan to boost state revenues with a daily tax rate on calls made via voice over internet protocol (VoIP), utilized by applications such as Facebook-owned WhatsApp.

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

    The country has also lately suffered a severe slowdown in capital flows, and difficulty of importers securing dollars at the pegged exchange rate. Prime Minister Saad Hariri is expected to address the crisis Friday in a televised speech. 

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

    Currently multiple main routes through the Lebanese capital have been shutdown due to makeshift roadblocks, as clashes with police continue, and with roads accessing Lebanon’s main international airport also blocked. 

    Police have deployed tear gas and other riot control measures against crowds described in the tens of thousands.

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

    Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported Friday that two foreign workers died from spoke inhalation after protesters set large fires, and 60 members of Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces (ISF) have been wounded. 

    Reuters has also reported the first protester’s death in clashes with police, which happened in the northern city of Tripoli, the country’s second largest.

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

    According to the Reuters report:

    Across the country, they chanted for top leaders, including President Michel Aoun, Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to step down.

    The mood was a mixture of rage, defiance and hope.

    A security source said one protester was killed and four wounded after the bodyguards of a former member of parliament fired into the air in the northern city of Tripoli.

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

    Security authorities have condemned what they called “chaos and violence” unleashed on the streets and urged calm. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 21:25

    Tags
    War Conflict
    Politics

  • The Late Great State Of California
    The Late Great State Of California

    Authored by Jeffrey Harding via The Mises Institute,

    My family moved to California in 1950, part of the post-WWII westward migration. My widowed mother, tired of Boston’s dreary winters, felt the westward pull. My eldest brother, a WWII Navy veteran, had heard good things about San Diego from sailors who had been stationed there during the war. So, California, here we come.

    I would like to think those were the golden years, at least for us. California was new, bright, warm, and full of promise. The East was old and cold. And San Diego was thriving. Defense and aerospace jobs were plentiful. Land was cheap, homes were cheap. A building boom met the housing needs for optimistic migrants. You could get things done in California.

    It’s not that California anymore. We are overregulated and overtaxed and people aren’t so optimistic. People want to leave.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What Happened to the Golden Years?

    A recent poll of the state’s registered voters by Cal’s Institute of Governmental Studies revealed that half have considered leaving the state. The top reason was the high cost of housing (especially by young people); high taxation was second.

    The poll also asked if California was one of the best places to live or a just an OK-to-lousy place to live. About half said yes and half went the other way. Interestingly 67% of Democrats said it was one of the best while 77% of Republicans disagreed. Apparently, Democrats like expensive housing, high taxes, and being overregulated.

    Are people leaving California? It depends on whom you are talking about. More people are out-migrating to other states than those coming in (–156,000), but much of that was offset by international migrants(+118,000) resulting in a net population loss of only 38,000 (2018).

    Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that California is the most regulated state in the nation — by far. The Cato Institute analyzed the laws of each state by measuring the amount of individual legal restrictions in their legal codes. California was at the top, way at the top with 395,503 individual restrictions (laws, prohibitions). We surpassed No. 2, ultraleft New York, by almost 90,000 restrictions. Our politicians in Sacramento keep passing hundreds of new laws every year yet half of Californians are thinking of leaving.

    And then there are taxes. California has the highest income tax rate of all states (13.3%). The highest combined federal and California income tax rate is now about 50% of taxable income. If you and your spouse have $200,000 of taxable income, your combined federal and California tax rate is 41.3%. That’s not something you should be applauding since California ranks 42 out of 50 states in fiscal solvency .

    Two new pieces of legislation will make things worse, much worse. One is statewide rent control. The other is the reclassification of independent contractors as employees.

    The War Against Low-income Renters

    A rent-control law, Assembly Bill 1482, was signed by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2019 . It limits apartment rent increases to 5% plus inflation per year (not to exceed 10%). It affects units built at least 15 years ago (on a rolling timeline). Rents can be adjusted to market rates only when a tenant leaves, but tenants can only be evicted for “cause.” Newsom said “These anti-gouging and eviction protections will help families afford to keep a roof over their heads …” But what if it doesn’t? What if it will harm tenants, especially poor ones?

    The advocates of rent control seem to have no grasp on the economics of price controls. Perhaps they should consult an economist. In a survey of prominent economists , 81% agreed that rent controls have not had a positive impact where they have been tried.

    Why would these cold-hearted economists oppose rent control? Because rent controls don’t work and they do the opposite of what was intended: they hurt poor renters.

    Here is what will happen with rent control in our high-demand coastal communities:

    • Owners will raise rents to the maximum every year to protect asset values.

    • Owners will be far more selective in choosing tenants, thus limiting housing for poor, less creditworthy applicants.

    • Tenants will be reluctant to move from rent controlled properties which tends to freeze the rent-controlled rental market leaving fewer apartments available for rent.

    • Rent controlled units will be gentrified as historical evidence shows that higher income tenants will be the most benefited class of renters.

    • Affordable apartment inventory will be further reduced as owners evict tenants, tear down older buildings, and build new, more expensive units which will be exempt from rent control.

    • More apartments will be converted to condos, further reducing affordable inventory.

    • Owners will cut back on expenses to preserve cash flow, thus reducing the quality of rentable units.

    Overall, rent control will disincentivize investors from investing in affordable apartments.

    These conclusions aren’t guesses or just fuzzy theories — they are based on actual experience from rent controlled areas.

    Adios Gig Economy

    The new law on classifying independent contractors as employees (AB 5) is a stab in the heart of the gig economy — the economy that provides convenient low-cost services when you want them. Think Uber and Lyft for ride sharing. You will now pay more and get less. That assumes they will stay in California. Uber, as everyone knows loses money (EBITDA earnings for 2018: –$2.41 billion). If they can’t make money on their present business model, how can they possibly make money if their driver costs go way up? So, I repeat myself: will they be around in a couple years? Will those drivers who feel they are being treated unfairly be out of work?

    This is a classic example of the Canute Effect. If you recall, Canute was the Danish king, who, legend has it, ordered the tide to stop coming in. Canute was obviously either detached from reality or just an arrogant megalomaniac who thought he could command nature.

    In our case, our legislators believe they can just pass a law and make things better. It doesn’t work that way. There are controlling economic realities that they ignore or, most likely, aren’t even aware of.

    Everybody knows that Uber changed the world for the better. Consumers loved the new service. Drivers signed up to make extra money, setting their own hours. So why do our politicians want to kill Uber and Lyft? We should ask ourselves: who would be better off without Uber and Lyft? Here’s a clue: in the governor’s statement supporting AB 5 he went out of his way to say, “A next step is creating pathways for more workers to form a union, collectively bargain to earn more, and have a stronger voice at work.” It’s an obvious power grab by unions who wish to unionize (i.e., kill) the gig economy. Unions are famous for protecting the status quo and fighting for more power. Taxi companies no doubt had their hand in it too.

    Understand that Uber and Lyft are just the tip of the gig economy. We all lose.

    The Tipping Point

    I just reread Malcolm Gladwell’s wonderful book, The Tipping Point, in which he details the things that push societal change over the edge. My fear is that California is getting to a point where the dynamism that has driven our mighty state’s prosperity will be snuffed out. Are we at the tipping point yet? I don’t really know, but with 395,503 restrictions on the books, I don’t see how it can get better.

    Our politicians are quick to say this will never happen. They say we have the most vibrant tech economy in the world. Our farms feed the country. People love California. They believe they are making things better. Yet they continue to pass laws that tamp us down. At some point it will tip over and the impact of their regulations and taxes will overcome the forces that made California great. These new laws are getting us closer.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 21:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 18

Today’s News 18th October 2019

  • Teaching Sex-Ed In Poland May Soon Land You In Prison
    Teaching Sex-Ed In Poland May Soon Land You In Prison

    Lawmakers from Poland’s Law & Justice party, who won a second term in Sunday’s election, have backed a new draft law that establishes jail terms for promoting “sexual activity” to minors, according to Reuters.

    Liberals argue that this includes teaching the benefits of condoms or educating minors about the LGBTQ community. 

    The legislation is making its way to a parliamentary committee for “further work”. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Opposition lawmaker Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus said:

     “Disgrace for the deputies … who referred for further work a project punishing sex education with prison.” 

    Hundreds of protesters gathered around parliament to voice opposition to the law.  

    Anton Lewandowska, 23, from the Ponton Group, a voluntary organization that provides sex education said: 

    “The attempt to limit access to education is a direct attack on all of us. Many people I know who do sex education are scared to do our work despite the fact that it is a basic right of every person.”

    Polish schools don’t offer traditional sex education, but rather they teach students how to “prepare for family life”. Cities backed by liberals have started to allow sex ed programs in some schools, prompting backlash from the Catholic Church and the Law & Justice Party.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some believe the party may turn even further to the right and toward the church to show voters that it represents their interests best. 

    But they’re also being accused of “fomenting homophobia during the election campaign, with party officials calling lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights an invasive foreign influence that threatens Poland’s national identity.”

    Scheuring-Wielgus continued: “They are trying to impose a narrative that we are in a culture and civilization war.”

    Newly elected Law & Justice lawmaker Marcin Ociepa says the law is being overinterpreted: “This only says that it is not allowed to encourage a person younger than 15 … to have sex or to conduct other sexual activities.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bishop Ignacy Dec of the Swidnica diocese said: “…it is worrying that some local authorities are introducing to pre-schools and schools sexualization programs recommended by the World Health Organization, which just harm children and youths.”

    Protests in the past have already prevented the Law & Justice party from further restricting Poland’s already strict abortion laws. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 02:45

    Tags
    Social Issues
    Education
    Politics

  • An "Amazingly Good" Brexit Deal But A Constitutional Challenge Looms
    An “Amazingly Good” Brexit Deal But A Constitutional Challenge Looms

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    A deal has been reached. Jean-Claude Juncker opposes an extension. A constitutional challenge to the deal is underway.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Juncker Does Not Back an Extension

    European Commission President and the EU have reached a deal. European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker opposes and extension. That is not his call but it is what I expected..

    In the video, Juncker says he is happy for a deal but sad to see the UK go.

    Reasonable Deal

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

    Those who say this is May’s deal warmed over are simply wrong.

    Constitutional Challenge and Other Details

    The Guardian Live Blog discusses a constitutional challenge, DUP opposition, and other details.

    Jean-Claude Juncker has tried to help sell the new Brexit deal in the face of opposition from the Democratic Unionist party by pouring doubt on a further Brexit extension in the event of it being rejected.

    Juncker said he was “ruling out” a prolongation, although the issue is solely the remit of the heads of state and government. “If we have a deal, we have a deal and there is no need for prolongation,” he added.

    Constitutional Challenge

    Campaigning anti-Brexit QC Jolyon Maugham has now lodged his petition at the court of session in Edinburgh, which essentially tries to ban parliament from debating the new Brexit deal, on the basis that it is illegal, and which he anticipates will be heard tomorrow.

    Maugham believes that the deal contravenes s55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which states that it is “unlawful for Her Majesty’s government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain”.

    With the detail of Boris Johnson’s new deal still emerging, lawyers insist that s55 is “crystal clear” and that any form of differentiated deal for Northern Ireland will contravene it.

    Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, has already cleared time for an emergency hearing in the court of session at noon on Monday 21 October, where he could issue court orders forcing Johnson to send a letter to the EU asking for an extension to article 50 until 31 January as per the Benn Act.

    Boost to Johnson

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

    Johnson Likely Has the Votes

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

    Sir Oliver Letwin will back deal

    Sir Oliver Letwin, who had the Conservative whip withdrawn over his rebellion on a no-deal Brexit vote, has said he will back the Prime Minister’s deal on Saturday, calling it “admirable”

    No Deal Says DUP

    These arrangements will become the settled position in these areas for Northern Ireland. This drives a coach and horses through the professed sanctity of the Belfast agreement.

    For all of these reasons it is our view that these arrangements would not be in Northern Ireland’s long-term interests. Saturday’s vote in parliament on the proposals will only be the start of a long process to get any withdrawal agreement bill through the House of Commons.

    Another Referendum?

    I think it is unlikely, but how would it turn out?

    Eurointellience frames it this way:

    for those who are still holding out for a second referendum, and who believe that it could easily be won: the problem with most of the polls is that they confound a person’s position on Brexit – Remain vs Leave – with how they would vote in a second referendum. We know a lot of Remainers who believe that the first referendum results needs to be respected, and who would vote no in a second referendum.

    A ComRes poll for Channel 5 news produced a more granular survey, and came up with a 50-42 split in favour Leave under a concrete 2nd referendum setting.

    When they asked the question whether the 2016 referendum results should be honoured, the response was 54% in favour, and 32% against. It is one poll only – and the numbers are probably going to swing backwards and forwards. But we should be under no illusion that public opinion on Brexit has shifted since the referendum. We see no signs of that.

    All’s Well That Ends Well

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

    Except nothing has ended.

    I suspect all the MPs who lost Tory party membership will regain the whip (membership) if they vote for the deal. That makes passage more likely, but not guaranteed.

    There are about 22 Labour MPs who want Brexit and that would likely be enough to offset the 9 DUP votes. This is my guess, Eurointelligence thinks passage falls short.

    If it does pass, legal challenges loom. And Benn is likely to modify the legislation requiring Johnson to seek an extension if it doesn’t pass.

    Final Irony Coming Up?

    One possibility is that if the legal challenge wins, a hard Brexit might happen, which Johnson could blame on Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Remainers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Boris Johnson needs to swing about 30 vote for his Brexit deal to pass, and that is my expectation even though some insist it will not pass without DUP.

    A Telegraph Number Crunch shows that is not necessarily the case.

    My comments in brackets.

    Mr Johnson has a deficit of 58 votes to overcome from when Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was defeated for a third time.

    Although the new deal has yet to be properly scrutinised, it is unlikely that he’ll lose many of the 286 MPs that voted for a deal in that third meaningful vote. This would leave Mr Johnson with the task of winning a net 30 extra MPs over to his cause.

    1: The ERG and the “Spartans” [28 possible]

    The European Research Group (ERG) consists of around 80 eurosceptic Conservatives who were vocal in their opposition to Theresa May’s deal. Most of them voted against it on the first two occasions but for it on the third.

    A smaller subset of this group – 28 “Spartans”, including Steve Baker – refused to back Mrs May’s deal when their other colleagues caved-in.

    While he can’t get the 30 extra MPs he needs from this camp, there are clear signs that a large number of them may be open to backing his deal.

    2: The expelled Tories [4 possible]

    Last month Mr Johnson expelled 21 Conservatives from the party after they opposed the government by voting along with Labour and the other opposition parties to remove a no-deal Brexit option from the table.

    Just four of this number actually opposed Mrs May’s deal at the third time of asking, with the remaining 17 best classed as anti-no dealers rather than ardent remainers.

    This means they should be persuadable when it comes to supporting any deal that Boris Johnson is able to secure – although there are no guarantees yet.

    3: Labour rebels [50 possible, 19 likely]

    This is the group that will, in all likelihood decide whether or not Boris Johnson passes his Brexit deal. Even with the support of all the expelled Tories and the ERG the numbers might not be there – especially if the DUP aren’t on board.

    Luckily for Mr Johnson there have been consistent rumblings from the likes of Stephen Kinnock – a Labour MP representing a Leave constituency – that they would support a Conservative Brexit deal.

    It didn’t happen under Theresa May – when only five Labour MPs rebelled against their party leader – but there is a sense that it could be different this time around.

    Earlier this month, 19 Labour MPs signed a letter to the EU asking them to agree a deal with Boris Johnson so that they could vote for it, while last month Caroline Flint suggested that up to 50 Labour MPs might back a deal.

    While 50 might be on the high side, 19 Labour rebels would in all likelihood be enough to swing the numbers in Mr Johnson’s favour.

    It means that there could well be enough votes available for a Brexit deal to be agreed by parliament on Saturday. But it will be tight.

    Free Vote?

    The margin of victory or defeat will likely come down to whether or not Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn will expel any Labour MP who votes for the deal.

    If Corbyn grants a free vote, or even a 1-line Whip, it could pass with a huge margin.

    My Expectation If DUP On Board

    • 27 Spartans

    • 19 Labour MPs minimum

    • 10 DUP

    My Expectation If DUP Not On Board

    • 22 Spartans

    • 10 Labour MPs on a free vote and possibly anyway

    In either case, it appears the deal will pass, but if it is that close, perhaps it fails because a few of those who voted for May’s deal do not vote for this one.

    But it is not even certain that DUP will vote against the deal. The EU will not revise the deal, but Johnson can likely add some sweeteners

    With DUP on board, passage is a near certainty. If Corbyn offers a free vote or a one-line Whip it’s also likely to pass easily,

    Tricks

    One trick that Corbyn might pull is to allow a free vote on the deal, then demand it be put to a referendum. Such shenanigans would fail, and probably miserably.

    Just Found This – Free Vote

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

    Looks a little convoluted. Here is the rest of the chain:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Amazingly Good Deal

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

    Hannan is a free market advocate. If he likes the deal, so do I.

    With one hand tied behind his back, Johnson did amazingly well.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 02:00

    Tags
    Politics

  • Everything You Wanted To Know About The Trump-Biden Ukraine Scandal (But Were Afraid To Be Called Partisan)
    Everything You Wanted To Know About The Trump-Biden Ukraine Scandal (But Were Afraid To Be Called Partisan)

    Authored by Aaron Kesel via ActivistPost.com,

    Scandal-plagued U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic “wonder boy” candidate Joe Biden have been exchanging political punches over a new scandal that erupted in Ukraine. Trump asked the Ukrainian President to investigate potential corruption involving Joe’s son, Hunter Biden, after a prosecutor investigating his financial dealings was fired in exchange for billions of dollars in U.S. govt aid organized by Joe Biden as Vice President of the U.S.

    Although, the mainstream media wants the public to believe the Bidens “did nothing wrong.” The truth of the matter is Hunter Biden blatantly used his father’s position of power as Vice President for his own financial gain in both Ukraine and China.

    In Ukraine alone, Hunter Biden was paid half a million dollars a year for a job he never showed up to, where he had no experience and couldn’t even speak the language, several red flags.

    Hunter, a Yale-educated lawyer, had previously served on the boards of Amtrak and a number of nonprofit organizations and think tanks, but lacked any experience in Ukraine. As a fun fact, to make his case worse, just months earlier he had been discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine. Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months for his work for Burisma Holdings, which largely remains unknown.

    In 2014, Hunter Biden is seen golfing in the Hamptons with his father and Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter, FOX News reported.

    Viktor Shokin was widely accused of corruption himself and then booted from his office in April 2016. Shokin was accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures. In March 2016, Biden, as Vice President, had threatened to cut off $1 billion in guaranteed loans unless Ukraine ditched Shokin; one month later the country complied with the demand.

    However, at the same time, Biden had protected his son under investigation by leveraging U.S. aid to Ukraine in exchange for firing the Ukrainian former prosecutor, which could be seen as a conflict of interest. However, Bloomberg disputes this claiming that the prosecution of Hunter Biden’s client had already been shelved at the time Joe Biden was calling for the prosecutor to be removed.

    Investigations into such activities by Hunter are well documented, ironically, by the mainstream press that is now attacking Trump for asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter and his father for corruption; a totally warranted investigation, given that Hunter’s father himself confessed that he told Ukraine to “fire the prosecutor or essentially, I am walking away with a billion dollar loan.” This writer is no legal expert, but that sounds a lot like quid pro quo activity.

    Conflicting accounts have now risen in Ukraine as well about what took place by Biden, with the former President of Ukraine and the prosecutor telling two different tales.

    Ukraine’s former top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, told Rudy Giuliani earlier this year that he was asked to back off any probe of the natural gas company linked to Joe Biden’s son, according to a copy of Giuliani’s notes obtained by Fox News.

    A former top diplomat, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, asked that Shokin use “kid gloves” in pursuing the company, according to the notes of President Trump’s personal attorney, reported by the outlet. “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around  June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador [to Ukraine] Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with kids gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” Rudy Giuliani told FOX.

    Beyond the claim by Giuliani on FOX, Shokin swore in an affidavit prepared for a European court, that when he was fired he was told the reason behind his departure was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation.

    “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

    “On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.

    You may remember Pyatt from the infamous Ukraine coup phone call, in which the former diplomat and then Asst. Sec. of State for Europe, Victoria Nuland, discussed a plot to overthrow the government. Nuland then states, “fuck the EU.”

    Both Joe and Hunter Biden were cleared of any wrongdoing in Burisma earlier this year when Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said that the Ukrainian private gas company was not the target of investigations by his office. He also added the former Vice President, and current Democratic 2020 candidate, didn’t act improperly when he called for the dismissal of Ukraine’s former prosecutor general, Victor Shoki, who had been investigating the company.

    “I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of U.S. presidential elections,” Lutsenko said in an interview with Bloomberg.  “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws – at least as of now,  we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to  its board.”

    However, there is a matter of memos and documents that contradict the narrative that were reported by The Hill’s John Solomon. According to the news site, these files, “raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

    Solomon continues writing, “for instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.

    In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.”

    So what’s the deal with Trump’s own involvement?

    Allegations are flying around that Trump may have also withheld money in the form of defense aid to Ukraine and demanded that Biden and his son be investigated for corruption. Trump is further alleged to have instructed Ukraine’s President to work with DOJ Attorney General William Barr.

    Despite these claims, the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that Trump didn’t pressure him, contrary to whats being reported in the media.

    There have been many significant updates since the scandal broke, including the GOP accusing the entire CIA whistleblower complaint to be an organized coup against Trump. The Republicans reason this by saying there was foreknowledge by House Intelligence Committee leader Adam Schiff and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who launched an impeachment investigation.

    This is in part because a spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged that one of the two whistleblowers alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff’s staff before filing his/her complaint. Schiff had previously claimed in a televised interview that “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” A Schiff spokesperson, however, told FOX News that Schiff himself “does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel” for any reason.

    The New York Times also weighed in stating in a report that Schiff got an “early account” of the phone call between President Donald Trump and the Ukrainian leader. Schiff respond on Twitter, claiming that his staff on the Intelligence Committee only advised the whistleblower to speak to an inspector general within the intelligence community.

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

    Trump responded to the claims of foreknowledge by bashing Schiff calling him a “fraud” while meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto.

    “It shows that Schiff is a fraud. … I think it’s a scandal that he knew before,” Trump said. “I’d go a step further. I’d say he probably helped write it. … That’s a big story. He knew long before, and he helped write it too. It’s a scam.”

    Schiff read what he called a “parody” version of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a hearing on the matter, which has drawn controversy and blowback.

    “I have a favor I want from you,” Schiff said while appearing to read from a paper. “And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it, on this and on that.”

    “Rep. Adam Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn’t exist,” Trump tweeted. “He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, and me sound guilty.”

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

    Schiff responded to Trump on social media, accusing him of trying to “shakedown” a world leader for election dirt and then attempt to cover it up.

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

    Despite all this, the CIA’s top lawyer, Courtney Simmons Elwood, made what she considered to be a criminal referral on the phone call, according to NBC News.

    NBC botched its reporting by revealing that the whistleblower was a man, writing:

    Elwood, the CIA’s general counsel, first learned about the matter because the complainant, a CIA officer, passed his concerns about the president on to her through a colleague. On Aug. 14, she participated in a conference call with the top national security lawyer at the White House and the chief of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

    Another article by NBC reveals that there is a complaint that involves someone outside of the intelligence agencies.

    As a result, the Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, is withholding that complaint because it doesn’t meet the legal requirement for disclosure to Congress, according to letters obtained by the news agency.

    What much of the mainstream press is missing, is that this information regarding Trump and Ukraine isn’t new. In fact, a headline from May by NYMag reads: “Trump Is Pressuring Ukraine to Smear Clinton and Biden.”

    In that article, NY Mag writes that, “Trump’s agents are lobbying Ukraine to smear his political rivals Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.”

    “Giuliani is trying to get Ukraine to pursue two investigations: one against the last Democratic presidential nominee, and another against the leading candidate to be the next one,” NY Mag continues.

    Although claims that Trump had his eyes set on going after Biden aren’t new, there is new information that allegedly Trump administration officials sought to take over a Ukrainian gas giant Naftogaz and direct its money-flow back to their own pockets, Associated Press reported.

    According to the news agency, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer Giuliani were involved and their aims were profits not politics. This group’s plan was then to steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by the Trump allies.

    Trump’s attorney Giuliani is in the crosshairs of the investigation in multiple ways. Recently, Ukrainians who helped Giuliani’s efforts to investigate Democrat Joe Biden were arrested for campaign finance violations. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were alleged to be a part of a conspiracy to funnel foreign money into U.S. elections according to prosecutors, Wall Street Journal reported.

    Besides the CIA whistleblower and another unknown official, additional government employees are debating coming forward to testify against Trump in favor of the impeachment efforts, according to reports.

    Business Insider reports the full alleged transcript of the conversation Trump had with Ukraine President Zelenskyy:

    Donald Trump: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.

    President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following; the first time, you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

    Donald Trump: [laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

    President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

    Donald Trump: Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.2

    President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only. 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

    Donald Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it3. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

    President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that. purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have, friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

    Donald Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.4 The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

    President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation6 to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one, who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President: well enough.

    Donald Trump: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.

    President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.

    Donald Trump: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

    President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

    Donald Trump: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

    President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.

    Donald Trump: Congratulations on a fantastic job you’ve done. The whole world was watching. I’m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.

    President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

    If Trump did hold money over Ukraine’s head, like Biden did, he should be impeached and prosecuted for quid pro quo the same as Biden should be. It seems that for whatever reason the mainstream press is making this only about Trump, while ignoring the corruption of Biden. However, Biden is not innocent and scrutiny is warranted on his son’s investments in both Ukraine and China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Further, if Biden and his son Hunter should be prosecuted for quid pro quo, so should Donald Trump and his kids from  who Ivanka Trump and her husband alone profited $82 million last year according to reports. One such mention is the comparison of Ivanka’s Chinese relationship to Hunter Biden’s own deals with China during his father’s vice presidency. Ivanka is said to have a an estimated 39 trademarks in 2018 and 2019 alone that were accepted by China.

    Ivanka’s clothing line is produced in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, according to Teen Vogue magazine which looked into her businesses. In 2017, a Chinese labor activist was arrested and two others vanished after investigating alleged labor abuses at a factory called Huajian known to make shoes for several brands — including Ivanka Trump’s, NPR reported.

    In July 2018, Ivanka shut down her company; despite this, she received 16 trademarks in China and her business dealings are completely shrouded in secrecy, as CBS reported in 2017. Those trademarks pertain to everything from bags to umbrellas to sausages, Business Insider reported.

    Two months before, in May, Ivanka’s brand received approval for another seven trademarks. This was coincidentally the same month Trump announced that he had reached a deal with China to lift a U.S. ban on telecom giant ZTE. If that’s not enough, on the same day she dined with Chinese president Xi Jinping, her business received another three trademarks, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW.)

    NBC reports that in 2018 alone by the end of November, Ivanka had a strikingly high number of 34 total Chinese trademarks. Then in 2019, Ivanka was awarded another additional 5 trademarks according to Fortune magazine.

    All of the trademarks were said to be filed in 2016-2017 and last until at least 2028, according to numerous reports.

    Before this report was about to go to press, Hunter Biden stepped down from the board of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. a Chinese-backed private equity firm, NY Post reported.

    On the flip side, if Trump administration officials really did try to run a scheme in Ukraine they, too, should be prosecuted; corruption is corruption and isn’t restricted by political gang colors exempting individuals like the media tries to do with Biden.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 23:45

  • Are US Presidents Getting Older?
    Are US Presidents Getting Older?

    With three front-runners over the age of 70 and one heart attack suffered by candidate Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail, the presidential primaries for 2020 have been putting presidents’ ages on the agenda.

    President Trump, who is running for re-election in 2020, is himself the oldest president ever to be inaugurated (he was 70 at the time), and as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, all three democratic frontrunners (Warren, Biden, Sanders) would break that record still.

    But taking a look at all presidents’ ages at the time of their inauguration since 1789, the trend only extends to the four individuals already mentioned.

    Infographic: Are U.S. Presidents Getting Older? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Before Trump and the 2020 line-up, recent presidents’ ages were actually below average. Barack Obama took office at 47 years and 169 days, according to Potus.com, making him the fifth youngest president at the time of inauguration. Bill Clinton, who was 46 when he took over, was the third youngest.

    Some of the oldest presidents hail from past centuries. William Henry Harrison was 68 at his inauguration in 1841 (he died a month later of typhoid and pneumonia), making him the third-oldest president ever. James Buchanan, who took office in 1857, was the fourth-oldest president at 65.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 23:25

    Tags
    Politics

  • The NBA's China Problem Is Due To Political Control Over Markets
    The NBA’s China Problem Is Due To Political Control Over Markets

    Authored by Richard Ebeling via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    The news and sports media have been focused on the recent confrontation between the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the Chinese government due to a tweet by the general manager of the Houston Rockets about recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong that brought down the wrath of China. While many commentaries have focused on the NBA’s attempt to placate the Chinese authorities in the face of losing millions if not billions of dollars in lost revenues in the Chinese market, less attention has been given to what lies behind it all: a government’s ability to shut down commercial dealings between willing participants by simple command. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It all began when Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey posted a personal tweet that said, “Flight for freedom, stand for Hong Kong.” For several months massive and sometimes violent demonstrations have been going on in the former British colony of Hong Kong. When the British Union Jack was lowered from the last flag pole in Hong Kong in 1997, there was an agreement between London and Beijing that for several decades Chinese authority within the former colony would not interfere with many if not most of the freedoms that people had enjoyed for a good part of the time since 1842, when Hong Kong came under British jurisdiction. 

    China’s Threats to Freedom in Hong Kong

    The arrangement was known as “One Country, Two Systems,” meaning that on the Chinese mainland, the Communist Party ruled with their existing authoritarian power, while in Hong Kong, many of the internal affairs of the territory would remain untouched by Beijing. But especially in recent years, the Chinese government has been attempting to eat away at the freedoms enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong, including freedom of speech and the press, which has often taken the form of harsh commentaries on Chinese government domestic and foreign policies.

    What set off the demonstrations early in the summer of 2019 was a proposed law that would more easily compel the extradition to China of those accused of illegal acts against Chinese law. The extradition proposal itself was really less than it was made out to be, given other Chinese encroachments on Hong Kong freedoms. It was more like a straw-that-breaks-the-camel’s-back that sent waves of people, weekend after weekend, into the streets of the city. The demonstrators’ demands have been not only a withdrawing of the extradition legislation, but demands that the Chinese government respect the freedom of the people of Hong Kong in general, with even some voices calling for Hong Kong’s independence.

    China’s Domestic Authoritarianism and Global Imperialism

    Chinese President Xi Jinping has not only been tightening the authoritarian screws at home against any and all dissent against him or his government, he has been far more aggressively nationalistic in his foreign policies, insisting on reestablishing a global place in the sun for China through a grand mercantilist-type vision of growing Chinese influence and power over many other parts of the world. (See my article “Economic Armaments and China’s Global Ambitions.”)

    Many if not most territories “lost” by China in past centuries are often expressed as fair game to once more bring back into the administrative fold of those in Beijing. Thus, the Chinese government insists that a good part of the South China Sea is “historical” Chinese territory, on which they have been building a series of artificial islands and demanding that other nations stay out of these newly established territorial waters without their permission. 

    It is equally on this basis that Beijing says that Hong Kong as well as the self-ruling island of Taiwan is part of China. It is the reason the Chinese government opposes “separatist” talk concerning Tibet or among the Muslim Uighur population in the huge western region of Xinjiang, where from all accounts the Chinese authorities have incarcerated upward of a million Uighurs in “re-education camps” that others call mass detention centers; reportedly harsh and even brutal treatment is experienced by those who challenge those who rule over them in these camps. (See my article “Freedom and the Right of Self-Determination.”)

    A Tweet Brings China Down on the NBA

    So, given the direction of Chinese domestic and foreign policy, when Daryl Morey tweeted his support for the Hong Kong demonstrators and their cause, this immediately set off the ire of the Chinese government. All media and public broadcasting of Houston Rocket basketball events were banned from the Chinese airwaves. Rockets team sportswear and paraphernalia were banned from sale in China. This was followed by the end to a wide variety of business and other commercial relationships between the NBA in general and Chinese businesses, including the threat of breaking endorsement and other ties between leading American basketball players and Chinese companies. 

    Millions, if not billions, of dollars of revenues were now at risk of being lost, all because of a tweet and the hesitation by the NBA and individual team owners and representatives to unequivocally distance themselves from the Houston Rockets, or the Rockets’ own partial apologies for offending the “Chinese people.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the United States, conservative and “progressive” politicians and pundits lambasted the NBA for not standing up to the Chinese government and its attempt to hinder the freedom of speech of NBA administrators and team members. The NBA was told by voices all across the U.S. political spectrum that their reluctance to tell the Chinese authorities “Hell, No” demonstrated that the NBA and the individual teams placed the fear of lost profits above the political principle of freedom of speech. It showed the decadence of “capitalism” and the greed of those interested only in money. 

    Some of these pundits pointed out the hypocrisy of the NBA, which has heralded the right and freedom of its players to publicly speak out against “social injustice” and the policies of the current president of the United States, but which now kowtowed to a foreign government threatening its financial bottom line from lost business in China. 

    China’s Reaction to the NBA and the Importance of Economic Liberty

    What has been missed in all this, I would suggest, is the important institutional dilemma when any government has the power and authority to dictate with whom its own citizens do business and on what basis and terms of exchange. That the day after Morey’s tweet suddenly all of the leading Chinese media outlets and enterprises doing business with the Rockets and the NBA in general announced that they were halting or cancelling their dealings with the Americans makes it very clear that this was not a “spontaneous” series of acts by private Chinese citizens simultaneously upset with the words and deeds of their American business partners.

    This was a command coming from the Beijing government authorities to whom all those Chinese enterprises — public and private — are absolutely answerable for their existence and financial survival. Even think of disobeying, and literally “heads would roll” in terms of being fired from state enterprises and having your legal ability to operate threatened in your nominally “private” enterprise. 

    It should have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that however much China has been praised for its four decades of economic reforms in a direction permitting degrees of individual initiative and private business, the entire Chinese economy remains under the microscopic control and command of the government. If and when businesses are left alone by the Chinese government, it is when those directing and managing those enterprises are doing what is explicitly or implicitly in the directions the Chinese authorities wants them to be moving. 

    And when those doing the central planning of the Chinese economy, starting with President Xi at the top, want any or all of those enterprisers to do different things differently, they are instantly at the beck and call of those holding the power of life and death over them and their businesses. This is the meaning of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Others might call it economic fascism, under which businesses may nominally be in private hands, but it is the government that ultimately determines and dictates how those in charge of their businesses go about doing business. In other words, economic fascism is simply socialism with nominal (and not real) private-enterprise characteristics. 

    Beijing Regularly Threatens American Businesses 

    The Chinese government has used this power to strong-arm American companies doing business in China numerous times over the years, including being at the service of the communist authorities in their attempt to surveil everyone in the country and dictate the type of political, social, economic, and historical information that will be accessible to citizens of China. In other instances, it has concerned an American company sharing proprietary technology with a Chinese enterprise with which it wants to do business. And at other times, it has been more crassly materialistic, with the expectation that a U.S. company will give a bribe or appoint some government higher-up’s son or nephew to a well-paying position in a joint U.S.–Chinese enterprise 

    In this latest instance concerning the NBA, it is demanding that a group of American sports teams either keep their collective mouths shut on political matters dear to the Chinese government or parrot the Communist Party ideological line, after giving the necessary public and groveling apology for daring to challenge anything said or done by the rising global power of the 21st century. 

    In the hysteria of an American political election season, the worst thing that could happen would be if politicians and pundits now propose to legislate or regulate the response by the NBA or the Houston Rockets to the Chinese government. With all the chatter about the Chinese attempting to abridge the freedom of speech of Americans through the weapon of financial intimidation if they want to do business in China, it then would be the U.S. government dictating what those sports teams and their NBA representatives could say and agree to in trying to salvage their growing business in China.

    The U.S. authorities would be merely doing a political variation on the same commanding-and-controlling theme that the Chinese government is accused of doing. Plus, the establishment of such a precedent would only reinforce the degree to which the U.S. government already regulates, controls, restricts, and commands American enterprises in far too many ways and directions. 

    Donald Trump Cannot Dictate People’s Words or Actions

    Those who have suggested hypocrisy in the NBA, in that domestically it encourages players to publicly express their political and social views on a variety of American policy-related issues, but cowers in fear before the Chinese government over a tweet, forget an important difference: the U.S. government cannot just shut down those teams and destroy their financial viability. 

    There is much made of President Donald Trump’s huffing and puffing about football players who kneel during the national anthem at the beginning of a game, or that he says how the mainstream media are out to get him and declares much of what they print and say to be “fake news.” His critics accuse him of trying to intimidate those who wish nothing more than express their views under the First Amendment to the Constitution and speak their minds as citizens of a democratic society. 

    There is one important difference in the words and actions of Donald Trump and those of President Xi Jinping and his government in China: Donald cannot command that all companies doing business with the NFL in terms of products, media coverage, or endorsement contracts are to stop doing so until every football player who has kneeled during the national anthem publicly apologize for “offending the American people” and promises to happily stand and sing along at the start of every game from now on. 

    Nor can the president of the United States order the firing of the heads of CNN or MSNBC, or command that Fox News get back in line never criticizing anything he says or does, like as good Trumpians they used to always do. The strength of freedom of speech in the United States is demonstrated by the fact that no matter how much Donald Trump may rant and rave, the mainstream media continues to report and editorialize just the way they want, no matter how much they say that he is a friend of fascism and an enemy of freedom. 

    Freedom Requires Separating Markets From the State

    Why and how can they do this? Because in spite of the degree to which the government influences and regulates much in the American marketplace, it still remains institutionally grounded in an important and respected degree of personal freedom, private property, and freedom of enterprise outside of Chinese-style heavy-handed central planning. It is precisely because of the remaining degree of free enterprise in the United States, again, even with the existing interventionist and regulatory intrusions and controls, that sports teams and their members can make public statements of disagreement without being shut down, driven out of business, or arrested as “enemies of the people.” And the same applies to conflicting and competing news reporting and editorializing in the various forms of mass communication. 

    The essential lesson that should be drawn from this recent dispute between the National Basketball Association and the communist government of China is not that administrators and players in the NBA are being intimidated to make public apologies and toe the party line, but that this is why friends of freedom should always be concerned about and argue against government involvement and regulatory oversight and control over private enterprise and the free market. 

    It is not only that government regulation over business misdirects how and what private enterprises do, which deflects them away from competitively trying to find the best ways of satisfying consumer demands as the means to earning profits. That is certainly true. 

    Equally if not more importantly in terms of freedom in society, it is that every introduction and extension of government control, command, and regulation over the private affairs of the marketplace threatens the liberty of the citizenry. How you manage and direct your enterprise as a businessman; where and at what type of work you will be able to earn a living; and with whom you may do business and under what terms. All these become more and more dependent not on your free choices and voluntary associations with others on mutually agreed-upon terms, but upon the fate and favors of those in political power, and their goals and agenda to which you must conform or suffer potentially devastating consequences.

    It is not just classical liberal ideologizing about the importance of separating the marketplace from the state, private enterprise from political control. The dilemma that the NBA and its affiliates find themselves in with the Chinese government is the latest example of why a free society is not sustainable without a functioning free market that is widely free and independent from the power of those in political authority. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 23:05

    Tags
    Politics

  • Satellite Images Reveal China's Aircraft Carrier Factory
    Satellite Images Reveal China’s Aircraft Carrier Factory

    The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has given Reuters never before seen high-resolution satellite images of China’s aircraft carrier factory.

    The images were taken last month of the Jiangnan shipyard, located in Shanghai, China. The satellite photos show the progression of China’s first domestically built aircraft carrier and the rapid construction of infrastructure at Jiangnan.

    CSIS analysts said the aircraft carrier’s hull should be completed by fall 2020. The images show pre-fabricated sections, bulkheads, and other parts of the aircraft carrier.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CSIS told Reuters that much of Jiangnan shipyard was farmland last year, has since been transformed into an industrial powerhouse, with large structures for manufacturing ship components.

    “We can see slow but steady progress on the hull, but I think the really surprising thing these images show is the extensive infrastructure buildup that has gone on simultaneously,” said CSIS analyst Matthew Funaiole.

    “It is hard to imagine all this is being done for just one ship,” he added. “This looks more like specialized space for carriers and or other larger vessels.”

    Singapore-based military analyst Collin Koh said the newly constructed shipyard could lead to a rapid modernization effort for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CSIS said PLAN had shifted focus to larger surface warships, “adding to the sense that Chinese naval-capability development may be entering a new phase.”

    Reuters notes that the PLAN hasn’t announced plans for a third carrier, but state media has suggested that the carrier is under construction.

    Funaiole told Reuters that satellite images show China’s next aircraft carrier would be between 42,000 to 100,000-tons.

    Washington is closely tracking the development of China’s aircraft carrier factory. President Trump has recently called President Xi Jinping the “enemy” as it becomes increasingly clear the trade war between the US and China isn’t actually about trade but a great power competition.

    China already has two carriers, though they’re not classified as “supercarriers.”

    It’s believed that by 2030, China will have six carriers in operation — likely safeguarding the Maritime Silk Road and South/East China Sea.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 22:45

  • The Holy Grail For Our Rulers: Making The Truth Irrelevant
    The Holy Grail For Our Rulers: Making The Truth Irrelevant

    Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

    Our rulers believe their Holy Grail is in sight.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “But there’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”

    – Ellsworth Toohey to Peter Keating, The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand, 1943

    What do the follies of Russiagate and the Ukraine impeachment controversy accomplish?

    Truth is always the enemy of power. Exposure of power’s motivations, depredations, and corruption never serves power’s ends. Truth is often suppressed and those who disclose it persecuted. Any illegitimate government (currently, all of them) that fails to do so risks its own termination.

    What if, instead of suppressing the truth, a regime could render it irrelevant and not have to worry about it? That prospect is the Holy Grail for those who rule or seek to rule.

    Imagine an announcement to the populace: We rule you and every aspect of your life. Your wishes, desires, and plans are immaterial to us. You will do as we tell you or you will be severely punished or eliminated. Our sole end is power and we will be its corrupt and criminal beneficiaries. You are our slaves. Imagine that the announcement was not met with outrage and resistance, only quiet acceptance, even approval. The regime has disclosed the horrifying truth about itself, and nobody protests or cares. It has rendered the truth irrelevant. What future disclosure could threaten it in any way?

    That is the purpose of Russiagate and now the Ukraine impeachment controversy—they are part of a long running project to render the truth about our rulers irrelevant. That project is well advanced. Contrary to Toohey’s admonition, let’s examine the follies to understand what’s happening and what they accomplish.

    The key assertion upon which Russiagate rested was that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server was hacked by Russian operative named Guccifer 2.0, who then turned the data obtained over to Wikileaks. In that data were DNC emails that indicated the DNC’s strong pro-Clinton bias. Wikileak released the emails three days before the Democratic convention in 2016.

    Hack in this context means that the DNC server was accessed over the Internet, its cyber-defenses penetrated, and information was transmitted back to the hackers over the Internet. After Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks would be publishing “emails related to Hillary Clinton,” but before those emails were released, DNC contractor CrowdStrike claimed it had found malware on the server and evidence that it was put there by Russians.

    Guccifer 2.0 stepped forward the next day and claimed responsibility for the hack. With that, the actual content of the emails was virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Instead, there was a never-ending drumbeat of stories about Russia’s “hacking” of the 2016 election, which either implied or asserted as fact such hacking cost Hillary Clinton her rightful victory. That drumbeat has gone on for over three years, diminished but not completely quieted by Robert Mueller’s report and widely panned congressional testimony.

    The crucial problem with the hacking narrative is that there was no hack. The Veteran Intelligence Agents for Sanity (VIPS) performed an analysis of the metadata—information about a computer’s operations—linked to that alleged hack. A report on the analysis was published at the consortiumnews.com website about a year after the alleged hack.

    The Key Event

    July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

    It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.

    Consortiumnews.com, “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence,” July 24, 2017

    VIPS has impeccable credentials. As its name states, all of its members are intelligence professionals, including William Binney, formerly with the NSA and Co-founder of its Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center. The FBI or NSA could have performed the same analysis as VIPS, but didn’t do so. They never even tried to take possession of the server to examine it. Both agencies accepted DNC contractor CrowdStrike’s conclusions at face value.

    This glaring failure to investigate bolsters VIPS’ conclusion: the DNC was not hacked, its email files were obtained by a much faster download than was possible by hacking, a download onto an external storage device, perhaps a thumb drive, by someone who had physical access to the server. In other words, it was an inside job. Speculation has been that the download was by DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose murder not long afterward has never been solved.

    With this one fact the entire Russiagate narrative should have collapsed. That it ultimately did collapse with the release of the Mueller report and his testimony can be regarded as a failure by Trump’s many enemies. However, from the standpoint of the ultimate mission—rendering the truth irrelevant—it has been a shining success.

    The promoters kept a narrative balloon afloat for two years after it was decisively punctured and they endlessly harassed Trump. Not only that, but even after the Mueller report and testimony fiascos—admissions the story was groundless—almost half the populace still believes it and the mainstream media continues to circulate it as if it were true!

    Which is why the Democrats feel they can get away with an attempt to impeach President Trump over a phone call he had with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

    Ostensibly, Ukraine is a minefield for Democrats. In 2014, the US sponsored a coup against Ukraine’s duly elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who had aligned the country with Russia rather than the EU. That coup has not worked out well for the US. Russia quickly annexed Crimea, which had been part of Ukraine, and has aided a eastern Ukrainian separatist movement that favors Russia and bitterly resents the coup.

    The puppet Ukraine government has been a corrupt money pit for Western aid, loans, and loan guarantees, featuring, among many questionable characters, a coterie that reveres Nazi Germany and the role it played in World War II. The Ukrainian government is a loser, but it’s our loser and Trump has doubled down on Obama’s failure, backing monetary aid and weapons shipments to the beleaguered nation.

    Russiagate was launched by Ukrainian officials who disseminated rumors in 2016 that Trump was in league with Russia and later, openly questioned his suitability for the presidency. The DNC dispatched a contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, to Ukraine to search for compromising material on Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman. In other words, the Democrats sought information from a foreign power to influence the 2016 election, precisely what they groundlessly accuse Trump of doing.

    CrowdStrike, the firm that investigated the server the DNC wouldn’t let the FBI or NSA touch, was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow of the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank, and funded by a fanatically anti-Russian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk, who donated at least $25 million to the Clinton Foundation before the 2016 election. CrowdStrike never even produced a final report on its Russian hacking investigation, and had to revise and retract statements it used to support its conclusion.

    That conclusion was based in part on purported telltale Cyrillic characters it said it found when it examined the purported hack, left on the server by the purported hackers. In March 2017, WikiLeaks released Vault 7, which detailed the CIA’s own hacking capabilities, among which is the ability to disguise its hacks and make them look like they came from somewhere else, like Russia. The Cyrillic characters could have been put on the server by the CIA. Or they may only exist in CrowdStrike’s imagination, as nobody else has been allowed to look at it.

    In his phone call with President Zelensky, President Trump elliptically mentions CrowdStrike, from which it can be inferred he wanted CrowdStrike investigated: “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike.” He implied that Ukriane might have the DNC server: “The server, they say Ukraine has it.” It was in this context that he first mentioned having Ukrainian officials work with Rudy Guliani and Attorney General William Barr. Only later in the call did he turn to the Bidens.

    The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.

    Transcript, Trump-Zelensky call

    Joe Biden did what the Democrats accuse President Trump of doing—interfering in Ukraine’s investigative and judicial processes for political benefit. He threatened to withhold US aid to Ukraine if then president Petro Poroshenko didn’t fire Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General. Shokin was investigating Burisma, an energy company that had given Biden’s son, Hunter, a seat on its board of directors that paid him at least $50,000 a month. Hunter Biden had no connection to Ukraine and knew nothing about the energy business. These facts are not in disputer—Joe Biden bragged about what he had done to a Council on Foreign Relations gathering. Poroshenko fired Shokin in May 2016 and replaced him with Yurly Lutsenko.

    A mere recitation of the known, indisputable facts makes out a prima facie case of influence peddling and bribery, and had Shokin been allowed to pursue his investigation, he might well have launched criminal proceedings against Burisma and perhaps Hunter Biden. That would not have redounded to Joe Biden’s benefit, so squelching the investigation was indisputably in his political interest. He may have had another reason for squelching the investigation that strikes even closer to home. A member of Ukraine’s parliament has alleged that Joe Biden received $900,000 as a lobbyist for Burisma.

    In 2000, the US Senate ratified a treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration between the US and Ukraine, “Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,” providing, in the words of Bill Clinton, “for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters.” This gave President Trump, charged with executing the law, all the authority he needed to ask Ukraine’s president for assistance in investigating a prima facie case of influence peddling, bribery, and Biden’s pressure on Ukraine’s president to fire the Prosecutor General. That Joe Biden is Trump’s political rival is absolutely irrelevant, unless anyone who announces they’re running against a sitting president somehow becomes automatically immune from prosecution, that is, above the law.

    Suppose it was a Trump crony and his son, not Joe and Hunter Biden, at the center of this farce. If Trump said nothing about the matter to Ukraine’s president, didn’t insist that he investigate the crony, the Democrats would make out a strong case that Trump was not interfering in Ukraine’s judicial and investigative processes for political gain, although he had a Constitutional and legal duty to do so as the president and under the 2000 treaty. That case would be far stronger than the case they’re now trying to foist on the American public.

    One can hardly imagine a more inauspicious set of circumstances for the Democrats to launch an impeachment investigation and potentially a vote by the Democratic-majority House of Representatives to impeach, followed by a Senate impeachment trial. So why are they doing it?

    Because they can, and because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership will try to employ the procedural shenanigans similar to those they used to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote to get an impeachment vote without an adversarial proceeding. Republicans wouldn’t be able to issue subpoenas, question adverse witnesses or call their own; the vote will essentially be based on partisan assertions—hearsay from one, two, or perhaps three whistleblowers whose identities and testimony the Democrats may try to keep secret. So much for the right to confront one’s accusers. Perhaps the Democrats see due process as a white, patriarchal tool of oppression, not the embodiment of an individual right to fundamental procedural fairness in an individual’s dealings with the government. To their credit Trump and his legal team are balking.

    Things will be different in the Senate, but the worst case for the Democrats is the Republicans conduct a short, pro forma trial and vote not to convict.

    Many of the traditional Republican rank and file have an unshakeable belief, firmly held through eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Barack Obama, that if some supposedly decisive swath of the electorate only knew the illicit things those two, and Democrats in general, have done, they would rise up and electorally smite them. It didn’t happen during the Clinton and Obama administrations and it won’t happen now.

    The only thing left of Russiagate is Trump and company’s investigation of its genesis and development, which may result in criminal prosecutions against some of its sponsors. Other than that possibility, which will take years to play out in the courts, the sponsors have paid no price for Russiagate. It was a non-issue for most voters, and those who thought it important were primarily party partisans on both sides, among whom the Mueller report and testimony didn’t change a single vote.

    The Democrats are simply going to rerun the Hillary Clinton email scandal playbook. There, they shifted the focus from what the emails revealed to their phony Russian hacking story of how they were revealed. The switch this time is from the Democrats’ malodorous associations with Ukraine—from their sponsored coup in 2014 to Ukrainian interference on behalf of the Democrats in the 2016 election to CrowdStrike to Burisma and the Bidens—and instead to the perfectly legitimate phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.

    On its face this looks ludicrous, but it worked for Hillary. She is free, hasn’t been indicted, and floats trail balloons about getting into the 2020 race. If the Democrats can generate enough sound and fury about that call, especially in the mainstream media, and draw out the proceedings into next summer, they can divert attention from the Russiagate investigation and perhaps deflect or even stop it all together. Check out their records: Michael Horowitz  and William Barr are savvy Washington political players at best, paid up members of the Deep State at worst (see here for Horowitz, and here and here and here for Barr).

    The brass ring for the Democrats would be a Senate vote to convict, and there may be enough Mitt Romney-type Republican turncoats that the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand. Failing that, the Democrats would settle for winning the 2020 presidential election. They’re hoping the impeachment trial yields dirt they can use against Trump. Articles proclaiming that the impeachment gambit dooms the Democrats next year are wildly premature. Obamacare was supposedly doomed in 2016 after Republicans won the presidency and both branches of Congress and yet, here we are and Obamacare is still with us.

    The Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote once in the last seven elections (2004). The only memorable thing Mitt Romney ever said was his 47 percent comment. Roughly that percentage of the electorate really does draw its sustenance from the government—by now it may be 48, 49, or 50 percent—and it will mostly vote for the party of government. Couple that bought, built-in base with what’s been happening at the margins since the last election.

    No wall has been built and the illegal immigrant flood has not abated. That group is heavily Democratic and may be decisive in Arizona and Florida. Even Texas could be in play. Trump’s base is older, and some of them have died. Democrats are younger, and a substantial percentage of millennials now call themselves socialists. Democratic candidates are falling all over themselves promising freebies, including free college and health care and student loan forgiveness, to win their vote. Trump’s trade war hasn’t gone down well in farm states as agriculture bears the brunt of China’s retaliation. That could cost him Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina.

    Social mood drives both stock markets and politics. Should social mood turn more sour than it already is and the stock market and economy tank, Trump is probably toast, even if he escapes an impeachment conviction.

    A Democratic victory next year would be a giant victory for the truth irrelevance project. Two scandals manufactured out of whole cloth will not only not have cost them anything electorally, they will have further solidified their base, most of whom quit caring about the truth long ago. There’s probably no chance that Horowitz, Barr, and their colleagues would stand against a Democratic tide. Investigations will go to the bottom of their To Do lists, then get tossed down the memory hole sometime after the new president takes office.

    And without saying a word, the Democrats will be screaming to all those who saw Trump as a symbol of their own resistance: YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, BUT WE’VE MADE THE TRUTH IRRELEVANT! The opposition’s demoralization and anger will be off the charts.

    Whether the truth is irrelevant is a metaphysical debate. To skip to the ultimate conclusion: it’s always and everywhere relevant. Whether a political entity or government can act as if the truth’s irrelevant and neutralize or eliminate those who oppose it is a propaganda and tactical issue.

    The US is well down the road to stifling dissent and the truth. The Democrats are disregarding the truth and putting their chips on kangaroo justice. Republicans are rightfully outraged, but what kind of justice has the US meted out to truth-tellers and true whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning? Are there any prominent Republicans who have spoken out in defense of their truth telling or right to fair judicial processes? The truth irrelevance project is bipartisan.

    In 2016, the resistance to Government As Currently Constituted And The Powers That Be got behind Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders got screwed by his own party; Trump won the presidency. Whether Trump is more a symbol of resistance than the real thing is a topic for another essay. The important point is that his voters constructively channeled their frustrations, played by the rules, and voted him into office.

    If House Democrats conduct their kangaroo proceedings and Trump is convicted by the Senate, or if he stays in office but the impeachment and attendant media circus cost him the election, his supporters will stare at three relevant truths:

    1. the government, its string pullers, and its sycophants and toadies in the media, business, academia, Hollywood and elsewhere are completely corrupt;

    2. voting is useless, the only choices allowed are those approved by the powers;

    3. the system will never be reformed from the inside.

    Some of the resistance, disillusioned, will give up. The rest will continue to resist, but they won’t be playing by the rules anymore.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 22:25

    Tags
    Politics

  • China Q3 GDP Growth Disappoints, Slides To New Record Low
    China Q3 GDP Growth Disappoints, Slides To New Record Low

    It’s that time of the month again… when China drops all its heavy-hitting macro-economic data (goal-seeked or not – allegedly) with expectations for slowing industrial production and overall economic growth (but a bounce in retail sales).

    Recent aggregate macro data has been disappointing as China’s credit impulse (despite every effort) has failed to inspire…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The other main figures we had before today were the two manufacturing PMI readings, one of which showed some clear improvement, and the other showed continued deceleration; and both exports and imports contracted, in a clear hit from the trade war. The 8.5% slide in imports was particularly worrying.

    And of course, don’t forget that consumer price inflation is roaring thanks to piggy-driven food-flation…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The point being, no matter how ‘bad’ tonight’s China data is, a broad-based RRR-cut stimulus package is not high on the CCP’s agenda as Xi would prefer the social unrest in Hong Kong does not spread to the ruralities of the mainland as food-shortages spark chaos.

    So, let’s see just how good or bad things are…

    • China GDP YoY +6.0% YoY MISS (+6.2% prior, +6.1% exp)

    • China Industrial Production YoY +5.6% BEAT (+5.6% prior, +5.5% exp)

    • China Retail Sales YoY +7.8% MEET (+7.5% prior, +7.8% exp)

    • China Fixed Asset Investment YoY +5.4% MISS (+5.5% prior, +5.5% exp)

    • China Property Investment YoY +10.5% (+10.5% prior)

    • China Surveyed Jobless Rate 5.2% (5.2% prior)

    China Jan.-Sept. Pork output falls the most on record, and Iris Pang, greater China economist at ING, tells Bloomberg TV:

    “The very strong industrial production number is actually boosted by infrastructure activities.”

    The retail sales gain is the best since June (despite passenger car sales have slid for 14 months), suggesting solid domestic demand has helped offset at least some of the headwinds from trade. But, as Bloomberg reports, ING’s Pang cautions not to get too excited about the retail-sales gain, though. She points out that consumption figures in China aren’t quite comparable with the retail-sales figures you get in economies like the U.S. In China they include things like business consumption of materials used in construction projects, she says.

    Additionally, Pang says she is “a little bit worried” about the dip in fixed-asset investment growth. The pace of infrastructure spending may slow, endangering the 6% growth pace, she says.

    Graphically…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The Chinese goalseek-o-tron appears out-of-order tonight, when moments ago Beijing reported that China’s Q3 GDP rose just 6.0% YoY, below the 6.1% consensus had expected – and the lowest since ‘modern’ records began 27 years ago in 1992, dipping below even the financial crisis low of 6.4%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The initial reaction in markets was unsurprising – US equity futures rallied! because bad news is good news, right…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Perhaps the machines should glance at the inflation chart above before getting all hot and bothered.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 22:08

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • Schlichter: Bad Gaslighting Epidemic Sweeps The Elite
    Schlichter: Bad Gaslighting Epidemic Sweeps The Elite

    Authored by Kurt Schlichter , op-ed via Townhall.com,

    There are three questions that our terrible, terrible ruling class raises whenever it opens its collective kale-hole to lecture us:

    1) Does the elite think we are really, really stupid, or

    2) Is the elite really, really stupid, or

    3) All of the above?

    The last week has been eventful, even by Age O’ Trump standards, and the one enduring takeaway is just how bad these people are at gaslighting us with inept lies that demand we disbelieve what’s happening right in front of us. But it should come as no surprise that our alleged betters are no good at gaslighting because they have proven themselves to be no good at anything. 

    Here’s a fun test: can you name something – anything – major in the last two decades that our best and brightest have not screwed up?

    I’ll wait.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gaslighting is their default move because gaslighting is all these losers have. It’s not like they can sit back and let you read their CV of achievements. Iraq, Obamacare, their annoying millennial kids…all disasters. The members of America’s current ruling class are King Midases of failure. Everything they touch turns to suck.

    So, because they have no other way to deal with the damning evidence of their utter incompetence, our elite instead tries to convince us that we are crazy for noticing just how lame they are. That’s called “gaslighting,” the straight-faced denial of what’s happening right in front of you that tries to leverage your politeness and deference to convince you that it’s not the elite that’s rotten. You’re just crazy for noticing, you crazed crazy person of craziness.

    Take the Northern Syrian crisis – please. I generally side with the non-commie Kurds over the Turks, but facts are facts and facts mean something. We keep hearing how we “betrayed our allies,” but who promised the Kurds that we would fight Turkey on their behalf? It’s a big jump from “Let’s both fight ISIS” to “Take that, NATO ally.” But our garbage media, and our garbage politicians, sort of hand wave away the fact that you can’t “betray” someone by not doing what you never promised to do, especially when no reasonable person could ever expect you to do it.

    And then there’s the Kurdish monolith issue – all Kurds are not created equal. There are different Kurd factions and different Kurd groups, and some Kurds are communists. In fact, we’ve designated the very Kurds Turkey says it’s going after (the PKK) as terrorists based on their actual terrorism. Certainly, at the start of the story you probably couldn’t have expected our reporters and our politicians to tell Kurd X from Kurd Y without a program (in a better world, though, we’d expect them to zip it until they could), but when we’re a week-plus into what is allegedly the greatest atrocity ever was (because they think they can pin it on Trump) and they are still pretending that all Kurds are sweet n’ cuddly, they are lying to you.

    How about the response on Capitol Hill? We’ve got a bunch of politicians posing and posturing and prancing about over this border incursion half-way around the world and we’re sitting here wishing they would devote some of that wailing and teeth-gnashing to the incursions over our border. But once again, they act like we can’t see the truth sitting right there. As for the Democrats, well, how long would their support have lasted if Trump had used force against…our NATO ally? “You’re helping Putin!” they would shriek. Of course, they are currently shrieking, “You’re helping Putin!” when Trump doesn’t use force against Turkey.

    And then there are the Republicans who holler and cry, raging over this terrible situation as if there wasn’t some way for our pols to influence events by, oh, I dunno, offering a resolution declaring war. That’s a thing in the Constitution, I hear.

    But taking votes means taking stands, and virtue signaling is no fun if that signal is, “I want you to send your sons and daughters to maybe die to sort out this latest 2000-year-old brawl between this latest bunch of strangers,” and the voters you signal it to are sick of stupid wars that never seem to end.

    And then there’s the phony outrage over some silly meme where fake Donald Trump fights fake logos of the fake news. They insist that this year-old YouTube clip is going to spark terrifying violence against…I guess, CNN and MSNBC logos. Of course, these trademarks have remained unassaulted since this silly, fakey vid was created, but never mind that – this is the worst thing ever! Also, you must ignore the fact that the original movie scene the meme was based upon featured the hero massacring a church full of conservative Christians in Kentucky.

    Weird how that realistic cinematic bloodletting matched the seething hatred of traditional Americans we’ve come to expect from our poisonous popular culture, but the Blue Check Mafia has an explanation about why the Christian slaughter was A-OK. See, in the movie, Beanie and Cecil had a magic crystal and the mind control lasers made it so Zippy and Zoopy were actually good guys and shooting a bunch of Jesus people actually means we love Christians and stuff and don’t you see that when they shoot a church full of Christians it doesn’t mean they are shooting Christians, and that if you think it does you are craaaaaazzzzzyyyyyyy? Just don’t pay attention to the real violence outside Trump’s Minneapolis rally.

    It’s bad enough that they lie to us, directly and by omission, all the time. But what makes it worse is how their lies are such glaringly obvious fabrications and/or dissimulations that the deepest insult is that they think we might believe them.

    Sure, our elite is smoldering garbage, but what if it held unchallenged power? It would be a whole country that is Scat Francisco. See the nightmare play out in my action-packed yet hilarious novels of America torn apart by liberal malice, People’s Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire (plus Book Number IV comes out this November)! Those Bulwark weasels call my books “appalling,” so you’ll call them “awesome!”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 21:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 17

Today’s News 17th October 2019

  • Former Nazi Bunker To Open As Luxury Hotel In Germany
    Former Nazi Bunker To Open As Luxury Hotel In Germany

    A massive WWII Nazi anti-aircraft bunker, called Hochbunker (high bunker), dominates the St. Pauli skyline in Germany has new plans to be transformed into a luxury hotel, reported Forbes.

    The bunker was built by 1,000 laborers in 1942, created in under 300 days. The structure measures 246 feet by 246 feet, a perfect square, and nearly 114 feet high, with 11.5 feet thick concrete walls.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The shelter was originally designed to house 18,000 people during air raids in Hamburg, a major port city in northern Germany, in the late years of WWII. Nazi air defense systems were installed on the bunker’s roof to fire missiles at enemy bombers.

    Forbes said a new luxury hotel will be launched at the historic site by 2021. NH Hotel Group, a Spanish hotel chain, won the contract to outfit the bunker with a Nhow hotel with EHP Erste Hanseatische responsible for the build.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The bunker hotel will feature 136 luxurious rooms, a restaurant/bar, and a coffee shop. There will also be an urban rooftop garden, spaces for sports, and a memorial for victims of the Nazi regime.

    “I am very proud that Nhow Hamburg can be built in this extraordinary location as part of this fascinating project. Of course, we are aware of the history of the bunker and its significance for the city of Hamburg,” said Maarten Markus, Managing Director Northern Europe of the NH Hotel Group.

    Paul Hahnert, Managing Director EHP and Project Manager, told Forbes that “For us, it was crucial that the hotel should be open-minded in the creative district and, in addition, show responsibility towards the history of the bunker. This is an outstanding realization of the individuality of the Nhow design: it respects the history and at the same time points into a hopeful future. “

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 02:45

    Tags
    Hospitality Recreation

  • The World Turned Upside Down
    The World Turned Upside Down

    Authored by Martin Sieff via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    When a still-bewildered General Earl Charles Cornwallis surrendered his entire army to George Washington and to the Comte de Rochambeau at Yorktown in 1781, according to legend, a British military band heightened the humiliation by playing a ballad called, “The World Turned Upside Down.” The composer Lin Manuel Miranda later reimagined the song as a hit number in his acclaimed modern musical “Hamilton.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a time without speed of light communications, telegraph wires, radio or Internet, the fall of the British Empire in America still rocked the entire world. It was celebrated and welcomed from the Emir of Kuwait to the Tsarina Catherine in St. Petersburg.

    Yet when the Houthi rebel movement that controls much of Yemen wiped out three Saudi Brigades and inflicted at least 2,500 casualties at the end of September, the Western media ignored it.

    The outstanding analysis of Frederico Pierracini on this web site still stands virtually alone in offering unparalleled assessment of that event.

    It is out of fashion among Western commentators to admit that any “decisive battles” can happen anywhere unless they are safely in the past and the United States has won them. But when the Nazi Wehrmacht overthrew the legendary French Army in six weeks of operations in 1940 and when the Red Army wiped out the elite combat forces of the Nazis at Stalingrad in the fall of 1942, those battles were indeed decisive and the clock could never be turned back from them.

    The humiliating defeat that the Houthis have just inflicted on the Saudis is of comparable epochal significance. It does far, far more than confirm the victory of the Houthis in the long, needlessly prolonged civil war in Yemen that has killed at least 100,000 civilian dead over the past four years. The Houthis are now poised to bring the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself crashing down.

    There is dark poetic justice to this development. The House of Saud will fall as it rose, by a clash of arms in which a young, harsh but dedicated revolutionary movement challenged a worthless old reactionary regime supported by the great imperial power of the day and then destroyed it.

    Saudi Arabia’s founding father King Abdulaziz ibn Saud was a dashing, charismatic young tribal leader whose conquest of Arabia from the previously dominant but lethargic, petty, and corrupt Hashemite Dynasty eerily foreshadows the rise of the Houthis today.

    The Hashemites enjoyed the religious leadership of the Holy Cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina. They had previously served the Ottoman Turkish Empire but during World War I, they eagerly embraced the British Empire whom the family correctly judged to be on the rise and certain to supplant the Turks as the dominant empire of the Middle East.

    This Hashemite reading of global strategy was correct. But there was one insurmountable problem. Sherif Hussein of Mecca was such a uniformly despised, unjust and unsympathetic loser that he was capable of leading no one, and most of his family was no better.

    The British led by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill embraced the Hashemites  in the 1920s and put one of Sherif Hussein’s sons, King Feisal I on the throne of Iraq. Even with British military support, the family was hated there too. In 1958, the entire Hashemite Royal Family of Iraq was machine gunned to death in Baghdad in a massacre that shocked the world.

    Back in the mid-1920s, Sherif Hussein himself had already been driven out of Arabia by Abdelaziz and the House of Saud. Not all the might of the British Empire and not all the efforts of Winston Churchill could save him.

    So when the time came to explore the oil resources of Arabia, Abdelaziz spurned the British and gave the vital concessions to American oil companies instead. In May 1933, the Saudi Arabian government granted a concession to SoCal – the Standard Oil Company of California – in preference to a rival bid from the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum Company. It was the forerunner of today’s giant Saudi Aramco oil corporation.

    However, all the fabled Saudi oil wealth of the past 80 years was based on their previous conquest of the Arabian Peninsula. The core military lesson was clear: Brave, passionate troops with dynamic, energetic leaders will always beat wealthier, larger and better equipped forces led by tired, corrupt and worthless rulers.

    Now history is repeating itself, except this time the Saudis are going to be its losers not its winners.

    The Houthi victory serves notice that the Saudis have met their nemesis. Arrogant, reckless young Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman has had ample time over the past few years ago to call off his ferocious, cruel and bloody air campaign against the people of Yemen. He did not do so and it is too late now.

    Payback is coming. And it will not stop at the borders of Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

    The world is about to turn upside down again.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 02:00

    Tags
    Politics
    War Conflict

  • The Syrian Debacle Is Actually Well-Planned Chaos
    The Syrian Debacle Is Actually Well-Planned Chaos

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    For many years now I have focused a considerable amount of analysis on the subject of Syria, with an emphasis on the country’s importance to the global elites as a kind of geopolitical detonator; the first domino in a chain of dominoes that could lead to a war involving international powers. I believe this war will develop on multiple fronts, most importantly on the economic front, but it could very well turn into a shooting war involving numerous actors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Syria is so important, in fact, that the establishment has been careful to smother all discussion about what is really going on there in a fog of propaganda. And make no mistake, BOTH Republicans and Democrats as well as eastern and western governments are participating in the lies and misdirection.  Obviously, the first and most important lie is a multi-sided one, and we can’t continue forward until it’s dissected – I am speaking of the lie of US involvement in the region.

    Lie #1: The US Has Legitimacy In The Original Syrian Conflict

    First, most people reading this should know by now that US covert intelligence agencies (among others) were the force behind the “revolution” in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad. The majority of the fighters coming into the region were trained and equipped in Jordan in camps run by western agencies. The program was called “Operation Timber Sycamore” and was launched in different stages from 2011-2013.

    It’s clear according to the evidence that the Arab Spring and the conflict in Syria were products of global establishment meddling in the area. Weapons were funneled from the Libyan crisis into the hands of “rebels” that infiltrated Syria, and equipment directly provided by the US found its way into the hands of groups that would eventually become what we now know as ISIS. The Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Bolton and many others were intimately involved in Timber Sycamore. The war in Syria was entirely engineered from behind the scenes.

    The bottom line:  The US has no legitimacy there.

    In the Liberty Movement we talk about this conspiracy fact often, but I don’t think many people consider the wider implications. Was the purpose merely to overthrow Assad? Was it about installing a government that was hostile to Russia? Was it to lure Iran into a vulnerable position? Was it all about oil? The answer is no to most of these questions. These are surface explanations that do not satisfy the facts on hand. There is far more to Syria than meets the eye.

    Lie #2: The Original Conflict In Syria Is The Current Conflict

    Let’s distill this down to some primary facts: The US and other nations created ISIS and deliberately destabilized Syria. The establishment then tried to convince the American public to support the use of military forces in the region to back the insurgents and the civil war they created. This initial plan failed.

    Then, the establishment used the terror groups they created in Syria as an argument for why the US needed to send troops into Syria. This plan partially succeeded, but failed overall to generate public support for wider US involvement.

    Kurdish tribes in northern Syria were then forced to defend themselves against the spread of the ISIS plague. The Kurds fought bravely to defend their homes from the terror threat that western agencies had conjured, losing 11,000 fighters in the process. They seem to be the only innocent people involved in the entire affair. They joined the US as allies under the assumption that the US goal was to destroy ISIS. This was NOT the US goal. Not under Obama, nor under Trump. The real goal has always been to use ISIS as an excuse to maintain a US presence in Syria (we will get to why in a moment).

    Today, the war has shifted once again. This time, Turkey is invading Syria with claims that the Kurds present an existential danger. The reality is that the Turkish government has sought to erase all Kurdish culture from Turkey and Northern Syria since the 1970’s, including banning the Kurdish language and Kurdish dress and Kurdish names. Even the words “Kurd” and “Kurdish were eventually banned. The Kurds responded by forming the PKK and calling for a sovereign Kurdish state which would allow them to live without oppression. The Kurds did not turn to direct action until the 1980’s after many years of totalitarian subjugation.

    The Turkish invasion today is made possible by the rather convenient surprise pull-back of US forces from the northern border. Now, there is yet another excuse for wider involvement in Syria. The US is not out of the war; the war is just getting started. Each time the Syrian problem starts to fade and it looks like it will be resolved, something else happens which triggers another explosion of fighting. This is not a coincidence.

    Lie #3: The Trump Administration Is Pulling US Troops Out Of Syria

    This is not happening, and anyone who believes Trump is actually ending US involvement has been duped. It’s also not the first time we’ve heard promises from Donald Trump on an end to the wars in the Middle East.

    Over a year ago Trump proclaimed that he would be pulling the troops out of Syria, yet, only a week later it was determined that they would remain. Recently Trump made the claim again, and only days later the Pentagon admitted that US troops were only going to be shifted back from the border while the Kurds, our former allies, would be attacked by Turkish forces. Turkey’s military spokesman has said that they will “correct the demographics changed by the YPG (Kurdish defense units much like citizen militias) in Northeast Syria”. In other words, the goal is ethnic cleansing, and as the Armenian genocide teaches us, the Turks are no strangers to ethnic cleansing.

    Trump is not the only world leader to pull this kind of stunt, either. Vladimir Putin did the same thing in 2016, announcing an end to military action by Russia in Syria and a removal of troops, only to keep Russian forces there and well entrenched. The Russian presence has done little to prevent a flurry of Israeli air strikes against Syria, nor have they acted to prevent the Turkish invasion, so we must question what exactly Russia is still doing there as much as the US?

    These constant fake-outs on a Syrian withdrawal are meant only for the general public as a way of pacifying concerns, and it seems to be working. To this day many people still believe that Trump had pulled US troops out of Syria (or is withdrawing them right now) and Putin pulled Russian troops out after “defeating ISIS”. None of this ever happened. If you tell a big lie enough times the uneducated masses will start to adopt it as the truth.

    Lie #4: The International Community Is Sincerely Worried About A Kurdish Genocide

    Wow, it truly warms my heart to witness the sudden international outpouring of support for the Kurds in Syria. Establishment rags like the Washington Post and the New York Times, the EU government, the Israeli government, even Trump himself are all announcing their support for the Kurds and admonishing Turkish actions. They are all ready to enforce sanctions or even go to war in the name of defending the Kurdish people. How noble…

    The truth is, none of these agents of despair have any concern for the Kurds, and they will do nothing to save them until it’s too late. Later, they will act, but not to save any remaining Kurds. A Kurdish genocide is only a means to an end. And here we start to see the entire reason for the Syrian crisis unfold…

    Lie #5: The Kurds Are Not Our Concern, Or, They Are “Getting What They Deserve”

    On the flip side of the paradigm, I’m seeing the Trump cult making some outlandish arguments (as they always do) to rationalize the president’s bizarre and abrupt policy actions. The first argument claims that “it’s about time” that a president “stood against the deep state” and ended US involvement in Syria, and we should let Turkey and the Kurds sort out their own mess. I would repeat the fact that Trump is not leaving Syria or any other nation in the Middle East with a US military presence. He is only pulling troops back and leaving the door open to Turkish attack.

    I would also point out once again that it is not “their mess”, it is a mess created by western governments including the US.

    The Kurds lost tens of thousands of fighters battling ISIS, and the Turkish incursion into Syria seems to be taking advantage of their weakened defenses. This is a situation the US created. The Turkish invasion is a DIRECT result of the destabilization of Syria, and Trump’s pullback from the northern border was the icing on the cake.  It acted as a form of permission by the US that Turkey could now do whatever they wanted (for a time).

    I am also seeing the narrative that the Kurds are “getting what they deserve”.

    Some argue that the Kurds were stupid for trusting the US government as an ally and now they are reaping the consequences. This is hardly a valid assertion. Punishing the victims of a con for being conned is not the American way. At least, it shouldn’t be the American way. Also, the Kurds are not the real target of this disinfo campaign; conservatives are the target, and they’re falling right into the trap.  I believe this is a propaganda narrative designed to make conservatives sound like sociopaths.

    Trump’s claim that the Kurds were “not really our allies” as they “did not help us during WWII”, and that they were only defending their homes rather than supporting our efforts against ISIS shows an insane (but calculated) disinformation campaign designed to make conservatives look monstrous and untrustworthy. If Trump was really against the “deep state” he would not try to tarnish the image of our only legitimate allies in the region.

    Finally, another narrative being spread around is that because the Kurds have a socialist form of governance, they deserve to be wiped out. I would remind the people making this claim that the Kurds are not trying to force their political ideologies on anyone, and Turkey’s Erdogen is a classic totalitarian who has tightened his grip on the nation using every trick in the book, including a false flag coup attempt. Socialists or not, the Kurds don’t deserve ethnic cleansing.

    Yes, the US should not have been in Syria in the first place, but then again, we ARE in Syria, and it doesn’t look like we’re leaving, so if we’re going to be there we might as well do some good with our presence and act as a deterrent to an obvious Turkish attempt to erase the Kurds (our allies who fought a terrorist threat the US GOVERNMENT FUNDED) from the area.   Of course, it’s too late for that now…

    What Is Really Going On In Syria?

    If you’re not buying the mainstream narrative, you might be wondering why Donald Trump would suddenly abandon the Syrian border allowing Turkey to invade? You also might be wondering why he would then immediately threaten to “crush” Turkey with economic sanctions and place “thousands of US troops” on the ground if his goal was to end US involvement in Syria? The answer is in the macro-picture. That is to say, we have to ask the most important of all questions – Who benefits?

    As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, geopolitical events are being exploited by the globalist establishment as distraction and cover for their controlled demolition of the economy. They need scapegoats for the implosion of the Everything Bubble, an implosion they started in 2018 with liquidity tightening policies that has now accelerated into a full-blown financial crisis.  The Turkish invasion of Syria may be the pinnacle distraction event.

    With engineered chaos in Syria, Trump’s globalist handlers can achieve a historic level of chaos while avoiding direct culpability.  What do we get when we combine all the elements listed above along with lies on both sides of the political paradigm? Well, we get a rationale for war.  We also get yet another event which makes Trump look like a bumbling villain and conservatives look like fools or soulless robots.

    By extension, any tensions with Turkey suggest the beginning of the end for NATO. As I predicted in January of 2019, it appears that Turkey, a key component of the western alliance, is about to exit. This furthers the globalist goal of the deterioration of the west; the decline of the old world order making way for their “new world order” in which Eastern powers will play a larger role in conjunction with certain European elements. This is a dynamic globalists like George Soros have publicly and proudly discussed in the past.

    The Kurds may also be a direct target of the globalist agenda.  In a declassified CIA document titled ‘The Kurdish Minority Problem’, the agency indicated that the establishment has seen the Kurds as an unknown factor (which they don’t like) that is fiercely independent (which they really don’t like) as far back as the 1940’s.  The CIA suggests that the Kurds are an uncontrolled element that could make establishment goals in the region difficult to achieve.

    In the 1970’s the US manipulated the Kurds into actions against Iraq, which was amassing forces against the Shah of Iran and threatening to invade Kurdish occupied lands.  Once the Shah was removed from power by Iranian revolt, the US abandoned support for the Kurds.  The Iraqi government used the opportunity to attempt genocide against them using chemical weapons sold to them by the US government.  History does indeed seem to repeat.

    I suggest that because the Kurds are a tribal force of millions that might oppose the globalist agenda in the Middle East, they may have been slated for erasure, and this latest event is merely one of a long series of events designed to kill off the Kurds.  Or, at the very least, killing the Kurds is a bonus for the establishment.

    Beyond the Kurdish issue, a renewed Syrian crisis and EU opposition to Erdogen could lead to another flood of Muslim migrants into Europe. The last time this happened it sent the EU into an economic and political tailspin. It also opens the door to more fear in Europe and provides extra cover for a financial crash there.

    And, ultimately, the Turkish invasion provides a perfect excuse to draw a number of opposing camps into a single place in close proximity, The possibilities for the globalists are endless. The Kurds are turning to Assad for aid and protection from Turkey. Iran is a military ally of Assad. Russia is still heavily involved in the area, and so is the US and Israel. I think anyone with any intelligence can see where this is headed.

    If the globalists are successful in turning Syria into the center of the world by encouraging a Turkish invasion with a US troop pull back from the border, they would be killing multiple birds with one stone.

    They get a renewed rationale for wider US military involvement within the year.  They get increased economic uncertainty as major powers fight over the dynamics of the region.  They get a scapegoat for the crash of the Everything Bubble as the potential for wider economic or kinetic war rises.  They get a scapegoat in Donald Trump and his conservative supporters, who will not only take the blame for the economic crisis, but also any tragedy that befalls the Kurds.  And finally, they get a rationale for the end of NATO, which would be the next step in ending the old western world order.

    This clears the path for the introduction of a fully global and completely centralized new world order; a world without economic or national borders in which the elites govern openly rather than from behind the curtain.

    One “mistake” (or false flag) could ignite a conflagration between the nations involved. This is why the EU, the Russians, the Israelis and Trump all suddenly care so much about the Kurdish plight. They CREATED the Kurdish plight, and now they are going to use it to turn Syria into a massive powder keg. Syria is an artificially manufactured “linchpin”, as DARPA would call it. It is designed to provide catastrophe while maintaining plausible deniability for the establishment. Trump’s actions in Syria may seem random, but they make perfect sense when we understand that he is serving a greater agenda. The US “withdrawal” is not a withdrawal, it is a prelude to a bigger conflict which benefits the globalist cabal.

    *  *  *

    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

    Wed, 10/16/2019 – 23:55

    Tags
    Politics
    War Conflict

  • De Blasio's NYC Helicopter Regulation Forces Chopper Company Into Bankruptcy
    De Blasio’s NYC Helicopter Regulation Forces Chopper Company Into Bankruptcy

    New York Helicopter Charter Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday after running low on cash, according to Bloomberg. The filing comes as a result of New York City moving to cut helicopter takeoffs and landings in Manhattan.

    In 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement that he wanted to cut back on the “non stop din of helicopters” in the city after brokering a deal between the NYC Economic Development Corporation and the Helicopter Tourism and Jobs Council that cut the number of daily flights leaving Pier 6 in half. The deal also completely eliminated flights on Sunday. 

    CEO Michael Roth said he had to raise prices as a result of the cuts and is trying to conduct more flights out of a heliport in Kearny, New Jersey. 

    Roth said of Mayor de Blasio’s regulation:

    “Took a great business and the City of New York destroyed it. Eventually, with God’s help, I’ll save the business.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Roth says he is going to continue to operate the business while working out a plan to pay creditors under Chapter 11. His plan is to use the bankruptcy to try and help return the business to profitability. 

    The business had pulled in as much as $5.8 million in revenue in some years, but that figure fell dramatically to $3.8 million last year. The company was also hurt by a 40% rise in landing fees. 

    Last year, the 13-person company made about 2,800 flights. Its employee roster is down from 30 over the last two years. 

    The company sought a merchant cash advance in 2018 when it was desperate for cash and has been unable to repay it. Roth said he only had 6 payments left on his three helicopters when the company had to file for the protection. 

    Those who advocated for de Blasio’s regulation cited accidents and noise as two reasons to stop chopper flights over NYC. Several congressional members also wrote to de Blasio after this summer’s fatal crash in Midtown, asking for a full stop of all non-essential flights over the city. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/16/2019 – 23:35

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • The Art Of The Flank: India And Other Asian Nations Join Polar Silk Road
    The Art Of The Flank: India And Other Asian Nations Join Polar Silk Road

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The best partnerships occur when all participants have special talents to bring to the relationship which makes a whole more powerful than the sum of its parts. This is the beauty of the multipolar alliance formed by Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and a growing array of Asian, African and South American statesmen in recent years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When it became evident that the regime change wars that grew out of 9/11 were not merely driven by oil profits- but were rather designed to prevent the possible formation of an alliance of Eurasian nations, a counter-offensive was adopted by those targeted Eurasian powers to ensure their survival and international stability. This counter-offensive was driven by the incredible alliance of Russia and China who together had the combined talents of Russia’s extraordinary military/intelligence capabilities and China’s powerful infrastructure building capabilities.

    While certain Asian nations had been positioned by western geopoliticians to be anti-China, other nations under the NATO cage were forced to be anti-Russia. With the surprise Russia-China partnership, moves to unwind impossible knots of conflict threatening WWIII have begun to come unwound. Xi’s current visit to India is just one of many examples made possible by the flanking maneuvers created by the great alliance.

    India Joins the Polar Silk Road

    The importance of India and Japan’s participation in the 5th Eastern Economic Forum from September 4-6 in Vladivostok Russia can only be appreciated by recognizing this cooperative strategy between Russia and China. Both nations have recently transformed the ambitious development plans of Russia’s Far East and Arctic region into a Polar Silk Road – bringing the BRI into Russia’s Arctic.

    The fact that India was able to integrate its destiny into this emerging Polar Silk Road is vitally important for the future of international affairs, as President Modi was welcomed as Russia’s guest of honor. This visit ended with a historic 81 point joint statement with President Putin, solidifying cooperation in nuclear development, space technology, telecommunications, AI, nanotechnology, as well as Russia’s participation in major Indian infrastructure and India’s investment into Russia’s Far East and Arctic infrastructure. The International North-South Transport Corridor was high on the agenda as was an increased building up of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as “an equal and indivisible security architecture in Asia and the Pacific region”. Putin beautifully stated that both nations have “similar civilizational values” and similar approaches to the “fundamental issues of development and economic progress”.

    Echoing Putin’s message of multipolar cooperation, Modi said “by declaring the development of the Russian Far East a ‘national priority for the 21st century’, President Putin has taken a holistic approach towards improving everything ranging from economy, education, health to sports, culture and communication”.

    As the Indian president spoke these words, a $1 billion USD line of credit was offered by India for Russia’s Far East development, adding to the $7 billion USD currently invested by Indian firms in Russian oil and gas.

    This incredible unification of interests between Russia and India on the Polar Silk Road have flanked the fanatics within Modi’s own government who are ideologically committed to an enemy relationship with China due to the latter’s partnership with Pakistan on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

    While not as dramatic in effect, the Vladivostok meeting was also highlighted by participation by the leaders of Malaysia, Mongolia, and Japan- all of which have increased their commitments in the Polar Silk Road program and have in the same measure begun to liberate themselves from western manipulation.

    Putin’s Far East Vision Diffuses Japan-Chinese Tension

    For years, Japan has been a problem case in the Asia Pacific due in large measure to a decades-old military treaty with the USA resulting in 50 000 US military personnel, dozens of bases and an anti-China/Russia missile shield hosted in Japan. Fuel has been poured on the flames of conflict with China over the disputed East China Sea (known in Japan as the Senkakus and Diaoyus). Similarly, a Japan-Russian conflict has been kept hot over decades due to Japan’s claims over ownership of its “Northern Territories” which in Russia are dubbed the “Kuril Islands”. Of course Russia has made clear that it is willing to give those territories to Japan in accord with a 1956 Joint Declaration, but due to Japan’s status as colony of a US military seeking unipolar hegemony around “Full Spectrum Dominance”, it cannot do so, nor can it accept Japan’s calls to formerly end WWII with Russia. These obstacles aside, progress has been made.

    While Japan did not make the dramatic commitments into Russia’s Far East as India did, PM Shinzo Abe did make headlines when he stated Russia should be re-introduced in the G8, joining in similar statements recently made by both Emmanuel Macron and President Trump on August 21 in France. President Putin took the opportunity to advance on the theme by saying that not only would Russia accept being re-introduced into the group, but that China, India and Turkey must also become members!

    Just two months earlier, Abe applauded the signing of a deal “that facilitates Russia’s efforts to develop the Arctic and ensures stable energy supply to our country”– referring to the Mitsui and JOGMEC oil giant’s participation in the 2nd LNG project in Novatek. Commenting on the LNG-2 deal, Energy Security expert Professor Francesco Sassi of Pisa University recently said that the project “will see an unprecedented level of cooperation between Japanese and Chinese energy companies in one of the most important Russian energy projects of the next decade”.

    Lastly, the 9300 km Trans-Siberian Railroad has increasingly become a part of the BRI carrying goods between the East and West. On July 3rd Russian Railways announced a 100-fold increase in Cargo volume from 3000 twenty ft units to 300 000 by upgrading and doubling the rail, making this the “main artery for Europe-Japan trade”.

    Malaysia Solidifies its Relations with Russia and China

    While Malaysia has been pushed by the US Military Industrial Complex to participate in war games while confronting China over disputed territory in the South China Sea, the current President Mahathir Mohammed has resisted this anti-China stance by calling for increased cooperation on China’s BRI. President Mahathir’s visit to Vladivostok resulted in the creation of a Russian-sponsored Aerospace University in Malaysia and Mahathir’s happy announcement that the Russian Far East will open up new markets for his nation.

    On the Aerospace University, Dr. Mahatir stated: “we are very interested in aerospace and engineering. I am confident that the proposal by Russia to set up an aerospace university would not only boost investment but also promote transfer of technology in the sector.”

    Mongolia and the New Silk Road

    Up until just a few years ago, Mongolia was seriously being courted to join NATO. Canada’s Governor General David Johnson did the most to seduce Mongolia’s leadership going so far as to praise Genghis Khan as the great civilization builder and true soul of Mongolia that needed to become hegemonic in the Mongolian psyche as the nation joined North Atlantic Alliance.

    Luckily, the nation’s leaders recognized the sea change and made the decision to drop the offer (though still hasn’t managed to join the SCO beyond its current Observer Status). The creation of the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor in 2016 was a watershed moment which expands heavily upon the Trans-Mongolian Railway and AH-3 Highway Route creating vital links between Russia and China. These projects play heavily into China’s BRI.

    The days before the Vladivostok summit, Putin visited Mongolia where the two nations signed a “Treaty of Friendly Relations and Comprehensive Partnership” to bring “strategic partnership to a whole new level.” Putin announced a joint investment fund and $1.5 billion USD loan which President Battulga announced would be used to build more rail to the Chinese border for coal and mineral exports and the upgrade of the Ulan Bator Railway which Putin stated “is an important transportation artery for Mongolia”. Since 2017, Russian-Mongolian trade grew by 22%.

    In spite of all of this incredible development, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper demonstrated the superhuman disconnection from reality shared among all technocrats and neocons of the west during his August visit to Mongolia where he tried in vain to win the nation over to his imagined anti-Chinese alliance.

    The Welfare of Humanity is at the Heart of Everything

    Re-stating his concept of the global importance of the new paradigm emerging in Russia’s Far East and its connection with the broader BRI as an international affair for all mankind, President Putin stated “I believe that our brainstorming today at this forum will not only strengthen the efforts of human welfare in the Far East, but also the entire mankind.”

    This parting thought represents one of the most powerful concepts and sources of creative energy which both fuels the growth of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Polar Silk Road. It is also the core reason why western game theory logicians cannot understand how to beat it (except using the temper tantrum strategy of a toddler wielding nuclear weapons). It is creative and premised on a care for all mankind, whereas technocrats and game theorists operate on the narrow principle of selfishness which cannot generate anything truly creative.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/16/2019 – 23:15

  • Where Obesity Places The Biggest Burden On Healthcare
    Where Obesity Places The Biggest Burden On Healthcare

    Friday was World Obesity Day, an annual campaign established in 2015 to stimulate and support practical actions that will help people achieve and maintain a healthy weight and reverse the global obesity crisis. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the scale of that crisis has been highlighted by a new OECD report which shows just how much bulging waistlines are costing health systems around the world.

    Obese people tend to avail of of healthcare services more frequently with a higher rate of specialty care visits, inpatient stays and surgery, all leading to higher healthcare spending. The OECD states that obese people have 2.4 times more prescriptions than healthy-weight individuals on average while hospital stays are longer and require more expensive and complex treatment.

    For example, obesity is responsible for 70 percent of all treatment costs for diabetes, 23 percent of treatment costs for cardiovascular diseases and 9 percent for cancers. On average, treating diseases caused by excess weight costs 8.4 percent of total health spending in OECD nations.

    So where is the financial burden highest?

    Infographic: Where Obesity Places The Biggest Burden On Healthcare | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the U.S. has to spend the most battling the bulge. Obesity is expected to cost the health system $644 per capita annually from 2020 to 2050 – 14 percent total American health expenditure. By comparison, Canada will “only” have to spend $295 each year during the same period which equates to 11 percent of its total health spending.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/16/2019 – 22:55

    Tags
    Business Finance
    Health Medical Pharma
    Hospitality Recreation
    Social Issues

  • School-To-Prison-Pipeline Exposed As 30,000 Kids Under Age 10 Arrested Since 2013
    School-To-Prison-Pipeline Exposed As 30,000 Kids Under Age 10 Arrested Since 2013

    Authored by Jack Burns via The Free Thought Project,

    Arrests of children have skyrocketed over the last decade according to the latest statistics published by the FBI. Gone are the days of sending children to the principal’s office for a paddling. Now children as young as 6 are getting arrested in Police State USA.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The statistics, complied from 2013 to 2018, revealed more than 30,000 children under the age of 10 have been arrested, averaging more than six thousand kids per year. Equally disturbing is students 10-12 years of age topped 266,000.

    In the past, students and children were disciplined with consequences such as time out and paddling. As more and more schools replace handling things internally with external police state options like school resource officers, children are ending up with arrest records and their fingerprints stored in databases.

    Often referred to as the “school to prison pipeline”, the principal players in the funneling of kids from school to jail are the school resource officers (SROs), and it’s got parents at their wits end.

    Fortunately, the number of students arrested year to year are on the decline from 2014 until now. ABC News writes:

    While the FBI’s latest crime report released on Monday shows the numbers of children arrested under the age of 10 have continue to gradually declining in the past five years from a high in 2014 of 6,458 to 3,501 in 2018, experts say it is still too many.

    What may seem like routine policing or modern-day policing methods to some, others see as a human-rights violation, a slippery slope leading to a criminal life, and a poor use of school resources. Standing in the gap for children, some would say, are advocates of Restorative Justice (RJ). For example, instead of calling a school resource officer when a fight breaks out on campus at a K-12 facility, security officers (often teachers) will bring the kids and teens into a community of concerned advocates for keeping kids out of the school to prison pipeline.

    According to the Institute for Policy Studies, RJ programs are accepted by advocacy groups and others who are highly critical of the presence of school resource officers on campuses. The institute writes:

    Restorative justice (or RJ) treats incidents in which people are harmed (like, say, school fights) as requiring healing rather than punishment. It focuses on the actual harm that occurred and the need for healing, rather than on the breaking of a rule.

    Instead of calling gun toting badge wearing members of society to deal with unruly children, the RJ team is called.

    When an incident arises, the parties come together for a restorative circle that includes students, staff, community members, and a restorative justice practitioner. They address the harms together and try to arrive at a solution.

    RJ programs are catching on in schools where discipline issues have historically been a major problem.

    A growing number of school districts nationwide, from Oakland, California to Washington, D.C., are implementing these practices.

    The results are promising with referrals for school discipline down across campuses, students no longer have to fear going to jail. But such a lack of fear has reportedly caused even more disruptions in the classroom. We spoke with several teachers who wish to remain anonymous who say the RJ programs have created a “lack of consequences” on campuses with students now getting away with incredibly disruptive, disrespectful behavior.

    So, therein lies the delicate see-saw balancing act at work. Do schools involve SRO’s to deal with behavior issues (often linked to emotional issues) or do they work as a community to ensure arrests in school never take place?

    According to a recent research study evaluating the outcomes of restorative justice, it is working. The authors write:

    The bottom line for restorative justice programs and practices is that the evidence is promising, suggesting possible but still uncertain benefits for the youth participants in terms of reduced future delinquent behavior and other non-delinquent outcomes. Victim participants in these programs, however, do appear to experience a number of benefits and are more satisfied with these programs than traditional approaches to juvenile justice.

    While additional research needs to be done to evaluate whether or not the RJ approach to disciplining children is the best way to go, almost everyone should be able to agree on one thing. Police have no business placing 6-year-olds in handcuffs.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/16/2019 – 22:35

    Tags
    Education

  • It's A Bird, It's A Plane, No It's A Chinese Flying Saucer Attack Helicopter 
    It’s A Bird, It’s A Plane, No It’s A Chinese Flying Saucer Attack Helicopter 

    Earlier this month, the Chinese unveiled hypersonic weapons and unmanned platforms at a military parade in Beijing on Oct. 1. One piece of military hardware that the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, didn’t unveil, was an attack helicopter that resembles a flying saucer. 

    The Super Great White Shark, as what the Global Times is calling the flying spaceship, measures 25 feet long, 10 feet high, and was exhibited at the 5th China Helicopter Exposition in Tianjin, a major port city in northeastern China, late last week. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Global Times has indicated the saucer “is highly experimental and may not be put into practical use anytime soon.” Still, it added that the saucer could be the country’s future helicopter by 2030. 

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

    For vertical lift, the saucer uses a coaxial rotor system. Two turbojet engines are embedded on both sides of the aircraft, which give it a tremendous amount of horizontal thrust.

    The top speed of the saucer is expected to be around 400 mph. It can climb at a rate of 21.5 feet per second, according to the Global Times, who was citing data from an information sheet at the 5th China Helicopter Exposition. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The saucer has stealth technology built into the exterior skin — this will allow it to go undetected during combat. 

    Chinese military observers told the Global Times that the saucer’s speed, sleek design, and stealth capabilities give it an edge on the modern battlefield. 

    The saucer’s maiden flight could occur as early as next year at the China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition in South China’s Guangdong Province, China Central Television reported last Friday.

    “Whether or not this particular helicopter can become practical, such explorations are beneficial to China’s technology development for future helicopters,” an anonymous military expert told the Global Times.

    Another source told the Global Times that the future of China’s helicopters should include “high speed, intelligence, stealth, and low noise.” 

    China is racing to modernize its forces, with the latest technology including hypersonic weapons, armed drones, and fifth-generation fighters, amid the threat that the trade war with the US could ultimately end in a shooting conflict somewhere in the South China Sea. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/16/2019 – 22:15

  • China, The NBA, And The Massive Face Of Globalism
    China, The NBA, And The Massive Face Of Globalism

    Authored by Jon Rappoport via No More Fake News,

    Let’s get one thing straight. The Chinese people, whether they appear happy or sad, support their government because they’re controlled. After generations of being beaten down, the population bows the head and bends the knee to slave masters. Call that freedom if you want to.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And if you really believe the situation in America is no better than the system in China, even with the amount of censorship alive and well in America, even with the rigging of this economy, try an experiment. Move to China and start publishing articles relentlessly critical of the government there. See what happens. Be sure to leave a copy of your last Will and Testament at home.

    When the NBA commissioner and several players talk about loving their Chinese fans, they’re referring to victims of long-term terrorism. And if you press the NBA people on that point, they say, “We just want to play basketball, we just want the games.”

    And they want the money.

    The Nike money,

    the Chinese money,

    the television money,

    the other merchandise money.

    More Chinese people than Americans watch the NBA playoffs on TV.

    When, in a momentary fit of sanity, the General Manager of the Houston Rockets, Daryl Morey, retweeted FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, STAND WITH HONG KONG, the Chinese government launched a shit storm. Blacked out pre-season games, canceled press conferences, attacked NBA Commissioner Adam Silver for (partially and weakly) defending free speech. Now, calls are going out for Daryl Morey to resign from his job, to appease the Chinese government.

    The big fear? A few global NBA stars would decide to step up and defend the million Hong Kong protestors, who want to knock down a bill that would allow China to extradite “criminal suspects” from Hong Kong to the mainland, where they can be charged, imprisoned, tortured, murdered. Those number one Hong Kong suspects would be persons who oppose the mainland Chinese regime.

    The NBA stars, speaking out, could ignite a worldwide conflagration of public outrage aimed at the brutal government of China.

    So far, that fear is unfounded. Social justice warriors LeBron James [ZH: he has since come out defending China], (coaches) Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich are silent on the specific issue of Hong Kong vs. China. No one connected to the NBA is addressing it.

    We have what George Washington warned about: an entangling foreign alliance. The US, China, money.

    You have to wonder at the curious timing of all this now. The Chinese government, seizing on one little tweet, blows sky high, just when NBA players, coaches, and the commissioner happen to be in China on a good will money-pumping tour. It’s as if the Chinese government wanted an excuse to attack the US, because Trump has been stirring the pot on US-China trade relations. Obliquely, the Communist dictatorship wants to demonstrate how far they’ll go to crack down against any outside criticism, and against readjustment of trade that currently favors China. Grossly favors China. (We’ll see just how good or bad the new Trump trade deal with China is.)

    Who is in charge of keeping NBA players in a state of silence and compliance with the wishes of the Chinese leadership? The NBA, yes. But more importantly, the shoe companies. Nike, Adidas. They have enormous business in China. Mustn’t disturb THAT. Every famous NBA player has a big $$ shoe deal. Mustn’t endanger THAT money, either. So shut up. Play ball. Stay ignorant of politics.

    Entangling alliances.

    The Chinese leadership is, in effect, daring the NBA to cut ties with China and lose billions. “If your balls are made of money, we have you by the balls.”

    Why did the Rockefellers want to open up China trade with the West those many years ago? Why not, say, populous India instead? After all, India had some budding semblance of a representative government. Contrasted against China, India was Thomas Paine. The Rockefellers favored China because they LIKED China’s system. Massive top-down control. Absolute censorship. Violent repression. Mind control. Thus, a way to own and direct huge numbers of people and pacify them through fear and terror. Decade after decade. A GOOD MODEL FOR THE WORLD.

    An American friend described an incident he witnessed years ago when he was sitting on a tour bus in China. He and his buddy were the only Americans on board. An argument broke out between two Chinese tour guides at the front of the bus. At that moment, all the Chinese passengers bowed their heads and stared at the floor. This was their reflex reaction to a dispute between two low-level officials.

    So you can imagine their responses to leadership at the top. Total submission.

    These are the NBA fans who have a love affair with US players. And vice versa.

    Orwell, 1984: “But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

    Orwell: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

    Or perhaps a shoe, manufactured by Nike, in China.

    Suppose MANY customers of Nike stop buying their shoes.

    Suppose MANY NBA fans stop going to the games.

    Suppose MANY viewers stop watching the games on TV.

    Suppose MANY more social media users relentlessly spread messages supporting the Hong Kong protestors and exposing the brutal Chinese regime.

    Suppose independent researchers begin publishing lists of products made in China and bought in the US, so consumers can avoid them.

    Suppose many more people wake up to the fact that the economic glue that holds Globalism together is insane – domestic manufacturers abandon their home country and set up shop in places (like China) where they make their products far more cheaply; where wages are very low and environmental concerns are nil; and then, export those products for sale back home, thereby putting competing domestic companies out of business. Suppose many more people come to see this as economic suicide. Suppose they see Globalism itself as planned suicide. Planned to raise up certain countries ruled by brutal dictators, and sink other countries where some semblance of freedom still exists. And suppose they see this plan as a strategy for bringing about planet-wide repression under any label you care to use, but turns out to be Rule by Giant Corporations and Banks Colluding with Governments over All of Earth. No exceptions permitted.

    And suppose the 7.7 billion targets of this plan realize they’re all the real Deplorables, and consequently say NO.

    With the many avenues of communication available to us, that could be a tidal wave of NO.

    If you want to dig still further down, into the basics of economics, consider: relatively free markets can only function within a context where the playing field is level for competitors—the costs of manufacturing, marketing, and selling products are the same for everyone. Once you permit the massive import of goods from places where those costs are radically lower, you are rigging the game. The home country suffers. Companies shut down. Workers have no jobs. The general level of prosperity, whatever it was, keeps decaying. No matter how you slant and massage the numbers, no matter how many cockeyed theories you spawn, the outcome is unavoidable.

    Compound this engineered tragedy by permitting those massive imports to come from a country where the citizens are rigidly controlled by a criminal regime; enter into a huge number of economic agreements with that regime; turn a blind eye to what that regime has been doing to its people; and you have a sacrifice of freedom on all fronts.

    Then there is a chokehold. And then, on any occasion, for any reason, the brutal regime will issue a command:

    Don’t dare criticize us;

    We’re in this together;

    We have no principles and neither do you.

    *  *  *

    Brandon Smith, Founder of Alt-Market.com, has an interesting take on this whole farce…

    “It is perhaps ironic (but deliberately so…) that the trade war with China is meant to distract the American public from the fall of the US economy to the point that the globalists can dramatically reset the US system, building the same totalitarian framework that now exists in China. 

    The trade war with China is a farce that will go nowhere as it represent globalists on both sides of the Pacific working towards the same goal while pretending to fight each other. 

    But, the criticisms against China are entirely valid.  It is, indeed, an Orwellian nightmare state.  That’s the problem – The most effective lies are always wrapped in profound truths.  The trade war is a lie wrapped in the truth that China is part of a criminal cabal. 

    The greater truth is that both sides of the trade war are working against the middle, and the middle is us.”

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/16/2019 – 21:55

Digest powered by RSS Digest