May 10

Today’s News 10th May 2018

  • Putting London's "Soaring" Homicide Rate In Perspective

    London has a problem with rising violent crime, that is unfortunately a fact.

    According to Metropolitan Police statistics, there was a 51 percent rise in murders from financial year 16/17 to 17/18. Picking up on the issue, U.S. President Trump said at an NRA rally on Friday that one particular hospital in the UK capital was “like a “war zone” due to knife attack victims. This though, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, is a UK problem, and while the problem should absolutely not be played down, it is a problem on a UK scale, too.

    Infographic: London's homicide rate in perspective | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Looking at the broader offense category ‘homicide’, London had a rate per 100,000 population of 1.8 in the twelve months ending March 31 this year (including eight deaths that were due to terrorism).

    On a U.S. scale though, and when comparing to the biggest cities there, this rate is low – lower than any of the 50 largest in the country, in fact. San Diego is the safest of the major U.S. cities, with a homicide rate of 2.2. New York had a rate of 3.4 in 2017. Looking to the top of the list, Baltimore has an astonishing rate of 55.8.

     

  • Has Europe Rebelled?

    Via Oriental Review,

    Washington’s current foreign-policy practice is a bit reminiscent of the golden era of the Ottoman Sublime Porte, in the sense that any visit by a leader of a vassal state is seen as nothing more than an opportunity for a public demonstration of his willingness to serve the great sultan or, in the modern context, to do the bidding of the master of the White House.

    The visitor must also wear a big grin and speak passionately about how happy he is to have been given the opportunity to kiss the Sultan’s slippers. Or, to put it in the language of today, to be impressed with the leadership of the US and personally inspired by the energy of the American president. The Washington establishment can’t wrap its head around any other configuration, and therefore in the present era of America’s ebbing hegemony, the ideal visitors to the White House are the presidents of Ukraine or the Baltic countries. The other heads of states that come to Washington, including EU leaders and even some African presidents, act like insolent upstarts, who — from the standpoint of imperial tradition — do not stand to attention, tend to offer their flattery without fervor or exuberance, and, most importantly, do not race off to fulfill the wishes of the leaders of the empire.

    Reception ceremony of the Conte de Saint Priest at the Ottoman Porte by Antoine de Favray 1767

    The meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Donald Trump on April 27, 2018 served only to confirm that Washington does not need allies who have their own national interests: all allies must be guided by the concept of the unipolar hegemony of the US. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this is relegated to the circle of those who are seen as unfriendly to the White House. The Washington Post makes it clear that Germany falls into this latter camp: “Angela Merkel is becoming Europe’s weakest link.”

    That article points out how serious the differences are between the two countries’ ruling factions. Both Germany’s political elite, and as well as the German population as a whole, are characterized very disparagingly: “German passivity is deeply ingrained. Berlin’s political class lacks strategic thinking, hates risk and has little spunk. It hides behind its ignominious past to justify pacifism when it comes to hard questions about defense and security issues.” The general decrepitude of the Bundeswehr and its equipment are criticized and mocked in the discussion of Germany’s refusal to take part in the missile attack on Syria carried out by the US, Britain, and France. And then the article even alleges that Germany’s Syrian policy has actually abetted the wrong side by granting asylum to almost a million refugees fleeing that country, thus supposedly allowing Bashar al-Assad to continue fighting.

    In this context it becomes quite obvious that the specific issues that Merkel brought to the table in Washington were merely secondary concerns to her American partner. Germany’s Madam Chancellor had to traverse a distance of 10,000 kilometers to be granted a 20-minute conversation, from which it was clear that Trump had not altered his negative attitude toward questions so vital to the Germans as customs duties on steel and aluminum (set at 25% and 10%), Nord Stream 2, a loosening of the Russian sanctions for major German manufacturers, or the nuclear deal with Iran.

    Angela Merkel had a difficult choice to make. Either Berlin declares war on all of Washington’s opponents, or it is dismissed once and for all as the “weakest link,” with all the ensuing consequences. But the first option would be a blow to Germany’s national interests. It is not just its international trade that would take the hit, but also its energy projects and German public opinion. She was given to understand that otherwise Germany would fail to meet the White House’s criteria for the role of America’s main partner in Europe.

    Angela Merkel did not seem overly impressed. She sees the constraints that exist for her. The historical memory of the greatest defeat of the twentieth century still lingers. Hence the high level of wariness when it comes to invitations to join NATO’s military escapades. Nor has anyone there forgotten the 1980s, when Germany lived in intense fear of the USSR’s SS-20 missiles that could have incinerated that country in the blink of an eye. Germans have no desire to meekly toe the line of yet another US president, which could end up taking them back to those days.

    Apparently this is why the head of the German government seemed to have armored herself with the mantra of “don’t give anything to Trump” during the negotiations in Washington.

    If you look at things pragmatically, Trump needed to get a few concessions from Merkel. First of all, he needed the consent of the German chancellor to at least bring back the sanctions and hopefully to even agree to a war against Iran, because for the current Washington administration, a dissolution of the “Iran deal” and a subsequent war with Tehran is the biggest item on its foreign-policy agenda. Second, Trump had to “squeeze” Merkel on the issue of increasing Germany’s financial contributions NATO’s budget. According to the White House, Germany should be contributing 2% of its annual GDP to the alliance’s budget (or in other words, to the backlog of product orders for the US military-industrial complex). As Trump expressed it so poetically, “NATO is wonderful, but it helps Europe more than it helps us, and why are we paying the vast majority of the costs?” Third, the US needed to ensure that European leaders, and especially Merkel, capitulate in the tariff wars between the US and the EU, and, in a best-case scenario, to also secure the EU’s assistance in the trade war with China that Trump recently kicked off.

    Based on the results of the meeting, Washington received a polite refusal on all three points. Five years ago it would have been difficult to imagine this kind of situation, but now this is objectively the real-world state of affairs, and it is something that neither the political analysts in the US nor a significant faction of the European media class (which still views the European Union as a “big Puerto Rico”) can get used to. The significance of Puerto Rico is that it is a place outside the US borders, but that is in effect controlled from Washington, although it has no power to influence American policy. Incidentally, Washington’s official discourse in regard to the European Union has already undergone a radical transformation and, according to Trump himself, it seems that the EU was “formed to take advantage of the United States,” although prior to that the EU was painted in the official Western narrative exclusively in terms of its “ideals of freedom,” “protection of democracy,” and some kind of “pan-European destiny and values.”

    The essence of today’s transatlantic relationship can be seen in the contacts between Washington and Paris. Despite the White House’s high hopes for France to prove its loyalty to the alliance, its leaders have been just as firm as Germany’s in standing up for their own interests. This mindset was evident in the stance taken by President Emmanuel Macron, who was quoted by Bloomberg as saying “we won’t talk about anything while there’s a gun pointed at our head.” European leaders insist that any discussions take place with everyone on an equal footing, which Washington cannot indulge as a matter of principle. Even lower-level European officials are using their economic power to threaten the US. French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire claimed, “One thing I learned from my week in the U.S. with President Macron: The Americans will only respect a show of strength.” Needless to say, one does not speak to a real global hegemon in such terms.

    No matter what the outcome of all the diplomatic and economic conflicts between the two shores of the Atlantic, it is already safe to say that Europe has broken free of Washington’s grip, and future relations between the US and the EU will become increasingly tense. We shall soon see whether Europe will take advantage of its current opportunity to reclaim the economic and political freedom that it lost at some point.

  • Did Putin Green-Light Tonight's Massive Israeli Strikes On Syria?

    Just off a 10-hour visit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, and less than a day after Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday he doesn’t expect Russia to act against Israeli forces as they continue exchanging fire with Syria. 

    It appears the meeting wrapped up at the very moments a major escalation began along the Golan Heights, with both Syria and Israel trading blame for an initial attack which quickly escalated into Israeli cruise missile launches and shelling on targets in southern Syria and notably, on Damascus itself.

    Putin and Netanyahu at the “Victory Day Parade” at Moscow’s Red Square on Wednesday. Image source: Reuters via Newsweek.

    The question remains, did Putin give Netanyahu the green light for tonight’s events? 

    If it wasn’t clear over the past weeks and months of unprovoked Israeli strikes on Syria—ostensibly to roll back Iranian troop presence—then it should be very clear by now that Syria, Israel, and Iran are now in a state of war and all signs point to a continued intensification of the conflict. 

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

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

    And crucially, there’s currently no sign that Russia came to the aid of its close ally as rockets rained down on Damascus overnight.  Russia has routinely looked the other way while Israel has conducted, by its own admission, over one hundred major strikes on Syria—most of which have come after Russian intervention on behalf of Assad in 2015. 

    As Reuters reported late in the day Wednesday, Netanyahu told reporters just before departing Moscow: “Given what is happening in Syria at this very moment, there is a need to ensure the continuation of military coordination between the Russian military and the Israel Defence Forces.” The Russians and Israelis coordinate their actions through a direct military hotline intended to avoid accidental clashes which could lead to escalation between the two countries. 

    A reportedly “upbeat” Netanyahu further said, “”In previous meetings, given statements that were putatively attributed to – or were made by – the Russian side, it was meant to have limited our freedom of action or harm other interests and that didn’t happen, and I have no basis to think that this time will be different.”

    Thus it appears Israel may have been given a green light by Putin to engage targets in Syria, however, at this point it is unclear what limitations or restrictions Putin may have issued, if any at all.  

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

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

    Furthermore, the context and timing of the Putin-Netanyahu meeting suggests an increasingly cozy and warming relationship even as the crisis intensifies in Syria. According to Reuters:

    During his 10-hour Moscow visit, the Israeli leader attended, alongside Putin, annual Red Square celebrations of the anniversary of the end of World War Two. Israel recognizes the Russian date, May 9. Most Western powers mark it on May 8.

    “When the president of Russia invites the prime minister of the state of the Jews to stand alongside him at the parade symbolizing the Red Army’s victory over the Nazis, its liberation, also, of the (concentration) camps, of Jews and others – for Russia, that is very significant,” Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz told the Ynet news site.

    Reuters also noted that Israel has not joined Western sanctions against Russia over the crisis in Ukraine and allegations that its intelligence services poisoned a Russian ex-spy in Britain.

    Meanwhile things are escalating in Syria by the hour and by the day.

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

    Early unconfirmed reports suggest Syrian defense systems may have intercepted multiple Israeli rockets, while the pro-opposition media site SOHR says an air strike near Damascus killed at least 15 people, including eight Iranians. Reports have cited Syrian military sources which claim “dozens” of Israeli rockets downed by Syrian air defenses during the sustained attack.

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

    As we’ve reported, Israel is claiming to be acting against Iranian aggression, while Syria state media reports cite government officials as saying no Iranians have engaged Israel and are not in the areas of Israeli attacks.

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

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

    Pro-government Al-Mayadeen reported that as of 3am (Damascus time) over 50 Rockets had been launched at Israel by Syrian forces, and journalists on the ground said Israeli aircraft engaged targets near Damascus while flying over the border area.

    And into the early morning hours massive explosions were still being reported around Damascus. 

  • Another Step Towards Collapse Of The Petrodollar

    Authored by Rory Hall via The Daily Coin,

    For the past year and half a major topic throughout the alternative press has been the new Chinese oil futures contract settled/priced in yuan. The fact that China is directly challenging the Federal Reserve Note, U.S. dollar, is quite a significant change. For those that have been paying attention this new futures oil contract is nothing more than the next step in China moving completely away from the Federal Reserve Note, and the “world reserve currency” system and towards a multi-polar world with several currencies being used for international trade.

    Ken Schortgen, Jr., The Daily Economist, recently penned an article about Nigeria approving a currency swap agreement with China, stating,

    It has been a little more than a month since China officially began offering oil futures contracts denominated in the Yuan currency, but early results continue to be positive for this contract to over time take more and more market share from the West and the Petrodollar.  And with Iran, Qatar, and even Venezuela having already agreed to buy and sell their oil in currencies other than the dollar, a new currency swap agreement signed on May 3 between Nigeria and China could mean that a fourth OPEC nation could also soon be leaving the Petrodollar.

    The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has signed a currency swap deal worth about $2.5 billion with the People’s Bank of China to provide adequate local currency liquidity for transactions between national businesses, The Punch newspaper reported on Thursday, citing a high-ranking official from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Sputnik News

    The Daily Economist

    While China pursued currency swaps as far back as 1997, during the “Asian financial crisis”, none of the agreements were ever activated. That all changed with the global financial meltdown in 2008. China began actively pursuing, and instituting, direct currency swaps and even went so far as to open “Renminbi Clearing Centers” around the world including Canada, the backyard of the U.S..

    Beyond the moderate progress in Asian regional financial cooperation, China has signed swap agreements with approximately 30 countries since 2008 (see Table 1). The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) stated that those swap agreements were intended not only to “stabilize the international financial market,” but also to “facilitate bilateral trade and investment.”

    CogitAsia

    The chart above, from CogitAsia, was produced in 2015 and does include Japan, Nigeria or France all of which are conducting direct currency swaps with China. All three nations bring something unique, economically speaking, to the table that will prove beneficial for both sides of the trade.

    China now has direct currency swaps with more than 30 nations, including some of the largest economies in the world, like Japan, France, Australia to name but a few. This is all part and parcel to circumventing the world reserve currency system which punishes other nations, while at the same time strengthens the U.S. economy. What’s terrible for the rest of the world is awesome for the U.S..

    China, along with a great many other nations, are ready for this system to change and balance the economic scale. When you announce to the world that your currency is someone else’s problem, the people that have the problem usually find a way to mend the problem and eliminate the situation creating the problem.

    Even the gloomiest pessimists accept that a steep dollar depreciation would inflict more suffering on China and other Asian economies than on the United States. John Snow’s counterpart in the Nixon administration once told his European counterparts that “the dollar is our currency, but your problem.”

    Snow could say the same to Asians today. If the dollar fell by a third against the renminbi, according to Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University, the People’s Bank of China could suffer a capital loss equivalent to 10 percent of China’s gross domestic product. For that reason alone, the P.B.O.C. has every reason to carry on printing renminbi in order to buy dollars. 

    NY Times

    This is exactly where we stand today.

    China, along with Russia, understand this scenario all too well. These two nations, along with 30+ other nations, are making moves to be rid of the problem known as the Federal Reserve Note, U.S. dollar.

    Once this “problem” is corrected the U.S. economy will change dramatically. Inflation, and according to some economist like John Williams of Shadow Stats, hyperinflation will reign down on the U.S. economy like the world has never seen or experienced before. At this juncture we can only hope cooler heads prevail and a major war doesn’t manifest to announce the coming change in our global monetary system.

     

  • Australia Bans Payments Over $10k, Unleashes "Mobile Strike Teams" In War On Cash

    As Australia struggles to maintain its unprecedented 104-quarter-long streak of uninterrupted economic growth, lawmakers are intensifying the country’s “war on cash” – ostensibly part of a crackdown on “criminal gangs” that are smuggling drugs and/or people into the island nation and companies that are trying to cheat their taxes.

    To wit, Australia’s government has introduced an economy-wide payment limit of $10,000 for transactions conducted in cash, which, according to News.au, will help (in the aussie slang) “keep dishonest tradies and businesses from rorting the system by taking cash in hand.”

    Treasury

    From July 1, 2019, cash payments of more than $10,000 made to businesses for goods and services will be banned as the Turnbull Government seeks to crack down on the $50 billion “black economy.”

    The law was purportedly inspired by instances of large purchases – yachts, sports cars and other luxury items – being made in cash and the tax not being reported.

    Perhaps the most – um – striking element of the proposal is the introduction of “mobile strike teams” to catch businesses engaging in the act of conducting an illicit cash transaction.

    Treasurer Scott Morrison said the Black Economy Standing Taskforce will be beefed up to detect people making sneaky cash transactions through a rigorous identification system and “mobile strike teams”.

    A black economy hotline will also be set up to allow people to dob in anyone who may be cheating the system.

    “Cash provides an easy, anonymous and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity,” the response said.

    “Cash payments make it easier to under-report income and avoid tax obligations. This allows businesses transacting in cash to undercut competitors and gain a competitive advantage.”

    Meanwhile, Australia’s federal law enforcement are setting up a hotline for people to call in and “dob on their neighbors” who are violating the cash payments rule…

    A black economy hotline will also be set up to allow people to dob in anyone who may be cheating the system.

    “Cash provides an easy, anonymous and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity,” the response said.

    “Cash payments make it easier to under-report income and avoid tax obligations. This allows businesses transacting in cash to undercut competitors and gain a competitive advantage.”

    …And the Australian taxation office is stepping up audits and upgrading its data analysis tools to help catch businesses that violate the law.

    It said the taskforce had identified examples of “large undocumented cash payments being made for houses, cars, yachts, agricultural crops and commodities,” which contribute to the $50 billion black economy and “hurt honest businesses.”

    The Australian Taxation Office will also carry out more audits and improve its data analytics in its effort to curb money laundering and criminal activity.

    The law is slated to take effect in 2019. After that, transactions involving businesses will need be routed through checks or electronic means. But transactions between individuals and financial institutions.

    The government will also overhaul how it handles the Australian Business Register, including possibly imposing more stringent requirements on renewing businesses’ operating licenses.

    “This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax…

    It’s not clever. It’s not OK. It’s a crime.”

    Australian lawmakers have backed the new system, which was introduced by the country’s Treasurer, Scott Morrison in his annual speech introducing his proposed national budget.

    In its response, the government said it agreed with or supported the majority of the recommendations, including potentially requiring wages to be paid into bank accounts, effectively outlawing cash-in-hand payments. Workers in the “gig economy” will also face greater scrutiny. The government said it was “encouraging the transition to a digital society.”

    Of course, while the government says its new system is targeted at criminals, we suspect there might be an ulterior motive: Given the rash of foreign investment that has propped up Australia’s housing and asset markets, the government is merely trying to stop a flood of capital from leaving the country – particularly now that rising interest rates in the developed world are making its bonds and currency less attractive by comparison.

  • Ebola's Back! Congo Outbreak Sees 21 Cases, 17 Deaths In Last Month

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    The Democratic Republic of Congo has been alerted to an outbreak of Ebola.  In the past five weeks, there have been 21 cases of the infection reported, and 17 of those are now deceased.

    The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo declared the outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a rare and deadly disease, on Tuesday, the World Health Organization reported.  

    The declaration of an outbreak came after laboratory results confirmed two cases of the disease in the province of Bikoro in the northwestern part of the country. Bikoro is situated on the shores of Lake Tumba near the border with the Republic of the Congo. The new cases were reported from a small health facility about 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Bikoro.

    The average case fatality rate for Ebola hemorrhagic fever is around 50%. The deadly virus most commonly affects people and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees) and is caused by one of five Ebola viruses.

    “We will gather more samples, conduct contact tracing, engage the communities with messages on prevention and control, and put in place methods for improving data collection and sharing,” said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, the WHO’s regional director for Africa.

    “WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response.”

    Upon learning of the confirmed cases, the WHO alerted neighboring countries and set up its Incident Management System to fully dedicate staff and resources to the response. A government statement released Tuesday stated that the Ministry of Health has “taken all necessary measures to respond promptly and effectively to this new epidemic of Ebola in the DRC’s national territory.”

    Unfortunately, the DRC has a history with the Ebola virus. This is its ninth outbreak of Ebola virus disease since the discovery of the virus in the country in 1976. The last outbreak, in 2017, was quickly contained.  There are hopes that a quick response will all see this recent outbreak contained rapidly as well. WHO has also released $1 million from a contingency fund to support its activities in the containment efforts of this outbreak for the next three months.

    Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Congo Minister of Health, Lambert Matuku, the Minister of State and Labor, said, it is “a worrisome sanitary situation.”

  • Mastermind Behind 9/11 Attacks Wants To Chime In On Haspel CIA Confirmation

    The mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States wants to weigh in on the confirmation of CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel, offering to provide legislators with six paragraphs of testimony about his interrogations.

    Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed asked military judge James Pohl for permission to share “six paragraphs” of testimony about Haspel with the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mohammed was captured in 2003 and waterboarded by the CIA over 180 times, while Haspel ran a “black site” in Thailand in 2002 which employed enhanced interrogation techniques.

    On Monday, Mr. Mohammed submitted a request to the judge overseeing pretrial hearings in that case, Army Col. James Pohl, Colonel Poteet said. While the file is not public on the commissions docket, Colonel Poteet said it consisted of an expedited motion for permission to provide the information to the committee about Ms. Haspel.

    The motion, Colonel Poteet said, included an attachment, titled, “Additional Facts, Law and Argument in Support,” containing “six specific paragraphs of information” from Mr. Mohammed that his client thinks the Intelligence Committee should know. After Mr. Mohammed raised the idea, his defense lawyers agreed that the information was important, Colonel Poteet said.-New York Times

    Haspel came under fire in March, after reports in the New York Times and ProPublica reported Haspell’s involvement in the black site, as well as the decision to destroy 92 videotapes of the enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaeda leader.  

    Mohammed joins Democrats in trying to sink Haspel’s nomination, after several Democratic senators have demanded that the Trump administration declassify more information about her role in the program. 

    This month, four Democratic senators on the Intelligence Committee — Kamala D. Harris and Dianne Feinstein, both of California; Ron Wyden of Oregon; and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico — wrote to Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, asking him to declassify all C.I.A. information related to Ms. Haspel’s involvement in the program before her hearing, since she, as acting director of the agency, has declined to do so on her own. –NYT

    On Monday the CIA delivered a set of classified documents to the Senate, describing Haspell’s 33-year career at the agency, “including her time in C.I.A’s Counterterrorism Center in the years after 9/11.” The files are available for every senator to read. 

    “I am not able to describe the information,” he said. He added that it came from Mr. Mohammed himself, not from files turned over by the government to defense lawyers about the treatment of their client in C.I.A. custody. –NYT

    The Department of Justice wrote several secret memos during the Bush administration which approved CIA “enhanced interrogation” techniques – including waterboarding.

    The memos were later withdrawn, and Congress enacted a law which limited interrogators to the techniques listed in the Army Field Manual. The CIA’s internal inspector General found that agency interrogators would sometimes overstep the outlined techniques provided to the Justice Department for legal analysis – while the Senate report concluded that the CIA lied to the White House and other administration officials over the use of such techniques – portraying them as more effective than they actually were.

    “The American people deserve transparency regarding the background of a nominee who will be asked to represent them, and their values, around the world,” wrote the Democratic senators seeking declassification of Haspel’s conduct, adding, “Without making this information available to the American people, Ms. Haspel’s nomination cannot be fully and properly considered by the Senate.”

    Reactions have varied, though we were unable to find much support for Mohammed’s request from the left:

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

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

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

     

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

  • Bernie's (Latest) Boondoggle

    Authored by Daniel Mitchell via International Liberty blog,

    When I wrote about “crazy Bernie Sanders” in 2016, I wasn’t just engaging in literary hyperbole. The Vermont Senator is basically an unreconstructed leftist with a disturbing affinity for crackpot ideas and totalitarian regimes.

    His campaign agenda that year was an orgy of new taxes and higher spending.

    Though it’s worth noting that he’s at least crafty enough to steer clear of pure socialism. He wants massive increases in taxes, spending, and regulation, but even he doesn’t openly advocate government ownership of factories.

    Then again, there probably wouldn’t be any factories to nationalize if Sanders was ever successful in saddling the nation with a Greek-sized public sector.

    He’s already advocated a “Medicare-for-All” scheme with a 10-year price tag of $15 trillion, for instance. And now he has a new multi-trillion dollar proposal for guaranteed jobs.

    In a column for the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson dissects Bernie’s latest vote-buying scheme. Here’s a description of what Senator Sanders apparently wants.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants the federal government to guarantee a job for every American willing and able to work. The proposal sounds compassionate and enlightened, but in practice, it would almost certainly be a disaster. …Just precisely how Sanders’s scheme would work is unclear, because he hasn’t yet submitted detailed legislation. However, …a job-guarantee plan devised by economists at Bard College’s Levy Economics Institute…suggests how a job guarantee might function. …anyone needing a job could get one at a uniform wage of $15 an hour, plus health insurance (probably Medicare) and other benefits (importantly: child care). When fully deployed, the program would create 15 million public-service jobs, estimate the economists. …the federal government would pay the costs, the program would be administered by states, localities and nonprofit organizations.

    As you might expect, the fiscal costs would be staggering (and, like most government programs, would wind up being even more expensive than advertised).

    This would be huge: about five times the number of existing federal jobs (2.8 million) and triple the number of state government jobs (5 million). …The proposal would add to already swollen federal budget deficits. The Bard economists put the annual cost at about $400 billion. …overall spending is likely underestimated.

    But the budgetary costs would just be the beginning.

    Bernie’s scheme would basically destroy a big chunk of the job market since people in low-wage and entry-level jobs would seek to take advantage of the new government giveaway.

    …uncovered workers might stage a political rebellion or switch from today’s low-paying private-sector jobs to the better-paid public-service jobs… The same logic applies to child-care subsidies.

    And there are many other unanswered questions about how the plan would work.

    Does the federal government have the managerial competence to oversee the creation of so many jobs? …Can the new workers be disciplined? …Finally, would state and local governments substitute federally funded jobs for existing jobs that are supported by local taxes?

    If the plan ever got adopted, the only silver lining to the dark cloud is that it would provide additional evidence that government programs don’t work.

    The irony is that, by assigning government tasks likely to fail, the advocates of activist government bring government into disrepute.

    But that silver lining won’t matter much since a bigger chunk of the population will be hooked on the heroin of government dependency.

    In other words, just as it’s now difficult to repeal Obamacare even though we know it doesn’t work, it also would be difficult to repeal make-work government jobs.

    So we may have plenty of opportunity to mock Bernie Sanders, but he may wind up with the last laugh.

    P.S. Regarding getting people into productive work, I figure the least destructive approach would be “job training” programs.

    Beyond that, I’m not sure whether make-work government jobs are more harmful or basic income is more harmful.

  • Here's How Much A Luxury Apartment Costs In America's Priciest Rental Markets

    From Brooklyn to San Francisco, developers have been on a high-end housing binge in recent years, with apartments considered “high end” sometimes accounting for more than 75% of all construction.

    But how much does it cost to live in a building with amenities that sometimes include a pool, 24-hour fitness and wellness centers, on-site theaters, rooms and cafes?

    Cities

    A recent study by RentCafe found that the national average rent in a luxury complex is around $1,640 per month, or about $490 more than an apartment in a less-fancy building.

    But of course, that price can vary wildly from city to city, even when they’re in the same state.

    Chart

    For the same price as a luxury studio in San Francisco, you can rent a luxury 3-bedroom apartment in San Diego. In 12 cities you can rent a luxury studio for under $1,200 per month, and in 11 cities $1,500 gets you a high-end two-bedroom.

    But in Manhattan, the most expensive market, a studio will run you $4,500.

    Here’s a breakdown of the cities from least expensive to most expensive, courtesy of RentCafe.

    * * *

    El Paso, Texas

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $976

    Price range: $852 (1-bed) to $1,194 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: -1.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $291

    2. Oklahoma City, OK

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,024

    Price range: $872 (studio) to $1,295 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: -0.9%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $368

    3. Las Vegas, NV

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,102

    Price range: $838 (studio) to $1,322 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +18.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $284

    4. Louisville, KY

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,123

    Price range: $832 (studio) to $1,500 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.9%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $3125.

    5. Memphis, TN

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,134
    Price range: $988 (studio) to $1,476 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $486

    6. Phoenix, AZ

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,154

    Price range: $999 (studio) to $1,378 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +16.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $351

    7. Jacksonville, FL

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,173

    Price range: $1,010 (studio) to $1,434 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +12.9%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $347

    8. San Antonio, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,176

    Price range: $1,029 (studio) to $1,537 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +5.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $351

    9. Indianapolis, IN

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,191

    Price range: $1,137 (studio) to $1,394 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +11.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $453 10.

    10. Charlotte, NC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,247

    Price range: $1,157 (studio) to $1,455 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +11.0%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $347

    11. Columbus, OH

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,319

    Price range: $992 (studio) to $2,047 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +10.0%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $528

    12. Dallas, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,428

    Price range: $1,165 (studio) to $2,049 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +7.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $524 13.

    Austin, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,432

    Price range: $1,247 (studio) to $1,891 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +6.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $371

    14. Houston, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,448

    Price range: $1,229 (studio) to $1,848 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +1.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $608

    15. Nashville, TN

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,513

    Price range: $1,410 (studio) to $1,745 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +14.1%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $502 16.

    16. Detroit, MI

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,652

    Price range: $1,061 (studio) to $1,878 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +21.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $769

    17. Portland, OR

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,691

    Price range: $1,378 (studio) to $1,950 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +9.0%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $484

    18. Baltimore, MD

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,742

    Price range: $1,384 (studio) to $2,123 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +0.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $680

    19. Denver, CO

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,756

    Price range: $1,399 (studio) to $2,439 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.4% Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $499

    20. Philadelphia, PA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,197

    Price range: $1,623 (studio) to $3,677 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.2%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $925

    21. Seattle, WA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,261

    Price range: $1,723 (studio) to $3,595 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +13.2%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $644

    22. San Diego, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,376

    Price range: $1,847 (studio) to $3,105 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +14.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $704

    23. Chicago, IL

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,465

    Price range: $1,747 (studio) to $4,905 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,078

    24. Washington, DC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,591

    Price range: $1,952 (studio) to $4,670 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +1.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $841

    25. San Jose, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,849 Price range: $2,262 (studio) to $3,716 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $637

    26. Los Angeles, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,028

    Price range: $2,181 (studio) to $5,201 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +9.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,093

    27. Brooklyn, NYC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,285

    Price range: $2,630 (studio) to $5,728 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: N/A

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,352

    28. Boston, MA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,526

    Price range: $2,579 (studio) to $5,630 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +5.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,048

    29. San Francisco, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $4,132

    Price range: $3,157 (studio) to $6,812 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.2%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,125

    30. Manhattan, NYC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $4,416

    Price range: $3,179 (studio) to $8,163 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: N/A

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,035

Digest powered by RSS Digest