- The Saker: The Syrian Powderkeg – "I'm Not Convinced There Is A US Strategy"
Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,
Following up on our recent warning about the situation in Syria, Chris sits down this week for a conversation with The Saker, who writes extensively on geo-political and military matters. The Saker (a nom-de-plume), is a former intelligence expert with professional and personal insights into Russia and the Middle East.
He shares our deep concern for the dangerously misdirected current state of US foreign and military policy, as well as the potentially lethal repercussions these threaten to have in the powderkeg that is Syria.
In this week's podcast, The Saker provides an excellent distillation of the complex forces in play in Syria — as well as in the brewing friction between the US and Russia — and why the risk of nuclear war has now grown higher than it has been in decades:
I'm not convinced there is a US strategy. I think there is a CIA strategy, a Pentagon strategy, a State Department strategy. There used to be a White House strategy. Right now, I am not even sure. We should go deeper into who is doing what inside the Pentagon and the military. I mean, there is chaos.
There has been chaos since at least Obama because he was an extremely weak president. When a superpower like the United States is ruled by more or less an absent man in the White House, the agencies themselves start implementing their own policies. This is happening now under Trump, who was elected under specific platform and now is basically giving it up. There has been a coup against him by the neo-cons who basically got him under control. He wanted to drain the swamp, but the swamp basically drowned him.
I'm not sure there's anything I can identify as a US policy. There is, however, an Israeli and a Saudi policy. And those two happen to be very, very closely aligned. Because those two, first of all, are extremely powerful as we know, inside the United States. But not only inside the United States but they are also objectively aligned in the region, which is very counter intuitive. It's natural to wonder: What would the Saudi Wahhabis have in common with the Israelis? What they have in common is an immense fear of Iran, first and foremost. And generally, the Saudis and the Israelis have the same exact interest for the Arab Muslim world, which is to keep it in chaos and weak. That allows them to rule it. It's that simple(…)
[Provoking Russia in Syria] is completely nuts. And it is due to that fact that I 'm convinced the neocons are not American patriots. They have their ideology. They have their agenda. They are just like parasites sitting in the United States and using that country for their own petty ideological interests. Which is the same thing the Saudis have been doing, by the way. Our government has been hijacked, and that's the real problem.
By patriot, I simply mean a person who loves his country. Through that lens, Americans should immediately see that Russia and the United States have no conflict. There's nothing to fight over and a great deal to work together with. This is something that the neocons do not want. And that's why they basically crushed Trump. That is why both the Democratic party and the Republican party don't let the people who are for a non-aggressive foreign policy — like someone like Ron Paul — get anywhere near power. If you look at the Republican and Democratic national committees they always take away money from these candidates – even if means losing a Congressional seat. There is a real problem here in the United States. And that problem could end up with international nuclear war.
Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with The Saker (45m:51s).
- German Minister Compares Left-Wing Extremists To "Despicable Islamic Terrorists"
The violent riots that engulfed the city of Hamburg during the G20 summit have prompted some deep soul-searching among ordinary Germans while provoking a wave of indignation among German politicians, who demanded a radical change of approach toward violent protests, as well as to left-wing extremism. Speaking to Bild, Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said “Germany’s image in the international community has been severely damaged due to the incidents in Hamburg” following three nights of violent clashes between the left-wing radicals and police in the German northern port city that hosted the G20 summit.
“All alleged political motives for this orgy of violence are full of deceit and should just serve as a disguise for the real motive of the offenders that [came] from all parts of Europe: violence in itself,” Gabriel blasted, perhaps not knowing that NYC Mayor de Blasio flew to Hamburg with the explicit “noble” intention of encouraging said group of protesters.
The minister also demanded the creation of an EU-wide special investigative committee that would launch an inquiry against all those involved in the violent riots in Hamburg. “A state governed by the rule of law must now demonstrate an ability to defend itself.”
Echoing Gabriel, Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas also spoke about the necessity of an EU-wide response to outbreaks of left-wing extremism. He particularly demanded the establishment of the European information databank on extremists as well as more intensive exchange of data on extremists committing violent crimes. “We have faced a new form of violence, to which we should respond with enhanced cooperation in fighting extremists,” Maas told the German media on Monday in Berlin. He also vowed to employ a tougher approach toward violent extremists’ supporters. “Those, who support rampant violence will also have to stand trial,” he said, as cited by the Der Tagesspiegel daily.
Maas told German broadcaster NDR he backed creation of a “database of left-wing extremists”, but said it could take a long time to set up. In the meantime, countries should at least exchange data about those convicted of violent acts, he said.
Also on Monday, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere compared the left-wing rioters in Hamburg to neo-nazis and islamic terrorists. “The brutality with which extremely violent anarchists have proceeded in Hamburg since Thursday is unfathomable and scandalous,” de Maiziere told reporters. “Those were not demonstrators. Those were violent and felonious radicals,” the minister said during a press conference on Monday, adding that those who staged violent riots in Hamburg were “despicable, violent extremists just like neo-Nazis and Islamist terrorists.” He added that people who had thrown paving slabs from rooftops had essentially been “preparing attempted murder”.
He also echoed Gabriel’s words, saying that they have no right to use any political motives to justify their actions and expressed his hope that the German courts would pass “tough sentences” upon them. He went on to say that summits similar to the G20 would continue to be hosted in major German cities, despite any threats of violence from various extremists. “Any other approach would be a capitulation of the law-bound state,” the minister added.
Martin Schulz, the Social Democrat (SPD) challenger to Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany’s national election in September, said the militants had acted like terrorists. He said the “marauding gangs” could not claim to have any political legitimacy for their actions, adding: “It had the characteristics of terrorism.”
“Such small-minded skirmishes are the business of people who took a whole city hostage for their dim-wittedness in an almost terrorist manner,” said Schulz, whose party is trailing Merkel’s conservatives in the opinion polls.
* * *
There were also mutual accusations among Germany’s political parties, as many politicians focused specifically on the flaws of the existing approach towards left-wing extremism and violence in Germany by saying that this problem has long been neglected by the authorities.
The head of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), Christian Lindner, did not go quite as far as Maas’ suggestion of a database of left-wing extremists, but demanded that extremists’ activities be “much more closely monitored” by the German domestic security service, the BfV, which is usually tasked with dealing with terrorist activities or far-right extremists. A member of the presidium of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, Jens Spahn, told Bild on Sunday that “the extent of left-wing extremism in Germany has been downplayed for years.”
If those were neo-Nazis who reduced Hamburg to “wreckage and ashes,” the public indignation would be rightfully big, he said, adding that “the left-wing fascists with their hatred and violence need just the same clear response.”
The politician also went further, accusing the Social Democrats, Greens and Left parties of deliberately downplaying the left-wing violence and “closing their eyes” to it. His words were echoed by CDU Secretary General Peter Tauber, who told Bild that “nobody would come to the idea of just tolerating far-right extremist centers” while, “in case of the left-wing extremist centers such as Rigaer Strasse in Berlin or the Rote Flora in Hamburg, people are often too reserved.”
“That must change,” Tauber added.
His words were echoed by Stephan Mayer, an MP from the CDU’s ally, the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) party, who said that the city authorities in Berlin and Hamburg “should no longer tolerate squatting by left-wing extremists and lawless zones in Rigaer Strasse and the Rote Flora.” Both places were squatted by left-wing groups after being abandoned years ago. Similar ideas were expressed by the head of the Federal Chancellor’s Office, Peter Altmaier, who said that the closure of the left-wing extremists’ centers would be a “test” for Germany.
“We should not tolerate any lawless zones,” he said, adding that the left-wing extremists consistently spread the idea that “damage to property is not that bad.” He went on to say that tolerating such ideas is a “grave mistake.”
In his Twitter post, Altmaier also compared what he called “repulsive extreme terror” in Hamburg to terror from right-wing extremists and Islamists. He also thanked Hamburg police for its efforts aimed at containing the rioters.
Linksextremer Terror in Hamburg war widerwärtig und so schlimm wie Terror von Rechtsextremen und Islamisten. Danke Polizei. Danke Hamburg.
— Peter Altmaier (@peteraltmaier) July 8, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
Police said almost 500 officers were injured during the protests, with 186 people arrested and 225 taken into custody.
As Reuters reports, some commentators have criticized Merkel’s choice of Hamburg, a seaport with a strong radical leftist tradition, to host the meeting, saying her desire to demonstrate her commitment to freedom of speech had backfired.
To be sure, the chancellor also condemned the violence in her speech at the summit.
“I sharply condemn the rampant violence and unrestrained brutality the police was facing over and over again during the G20 summit,” she said at that time, adding that “there is not the slightest justification for looting, arson and brutal attacks.”
Merkel promised compensation to those who had property damaged. De Maiziere said he expected judicial authorities to pass tough sentences on the militants and added that breaching the peace could result in prison sentences lasting several years.
- Globalism & Pesticides Are Behind Massive Honeybee Die-Off, Bayer Study Confirms
Authored by Michael Hart and StockBoardAsset via StockBoardAsset.com,
Despite Big Agriculture claiming for years that their pesticides only kill pests, a report published in late June in the Journal Science proved what many people have suspected for years: the type of pesticides that Bayer pioneered, known as neonicotinoids, are responsible for diminishing numbers of honeybees.
“Two studies, conducted on different crops and on two continents … find that bees near corn crops are exposed to neonicotinoids for 3 to 4 months via nontarget pollen, resulting in decreased survival and immune responses, especially when co-exposed to a commonly used agrochemical fungicide.” the report said.
The studies even found neonicotinoid residue inside of hives where no chemicals had been used nearby. The study also noted that the presence of these insecticide residues was correlated with fewer queen bees in the hives and fewer egg cells in solitary bees nests.
This comes on the heels of the United States placing the rusty patched bumblebee on the endangered species list earlier this year.
This is especially troubling, because bees are responsible for pollinating nearly 75 percent of all crops grown for human and animal consumption worldwide.
And US honeybee colonies have been on a steady decline for the last four decades, as this chart illustrates:
However, perhaps the major contributing factor to not only the threats facing the honeybee but also many other species of plants and animals is the threat of globalization. A 2012 report in the journal Nature noted the following:
“Here we show that a significant number of species are threatened as a result of international trade along complex routes, and that, in particular, consumers in developed countries cause threats to species through their demand of commodities that are ultimately produced in developing countries. We linked 25,000 Animalia species threat records from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List to more than 15,000 commodities produced in 187 countries and evaluated more than 5 billion supply chains in terms of their biodiversity impacts. Excluding invasive species, we found that 30% of global species threats are due to international trade.”
This map shows the species threat hotspots caused by US consumption. The darker the color, the greater the threat caused by the consumption. The magenta color represents terrestrial species, while the blue represents marine species.
Credit: Daniel Moran and Keiichiro KanemotoWhile the Donald Trump presidency has placed the spotlight on the ways in which globalist policies have harmed the economies of the US as well as many other countries in the developed world, we tend to overlook the ways in which the demand for cheaper and more goods from the developing world harm our environment. Indeed, the Trump era has ushered in a demand not only for political decentralization, but also for the decentralization of our media, our currencies, and now our food supply as the damage of agricultural centralization becomes apparent. Our demand for 99 cent hamburgers has taken us to the edge of total ecological collapse, and at this point it is unclear if the damage is irreversable.
An interesting development over the last few years has seen large cities in the US most acutely ravaged by globalist policies, such as Detroit and Baltimore, turning derilect buildings within the city into multiacre urban farms as a solution to growing food insecurity within these deindustrialized urban centers. Urban flight from these cities over the years has facilitated the use of large swaths of the city to satiate demand for locally produced fresh produce, and has led to the growth of many year-round farmers markets that have helped to increase food security in these areas while decreasing dependence on these global agribusiness cartels. It seems that some of the Districts in our Hunger Games society are attempting to gain independence from the Capital.
Urban farms, such as this one in Baltimore, have increased food security in cities that have been hit hard by globalism and free trade.
Certainly, as we have noted before in previous columns, we are living in an era where massive change is taking place in almost every sphere of human activity. Right now is the critical juncture in which we will decide whether power will be returned to the people, or will be further consolidated into the hands of those who wish to micromanage every aspect of the human and natural world for their own private gain. The fight for control over the food supply is just one of many battlegrounds in this war for the future of the planet and our lives. Growing public awareness about the dangers of these pesticides as well as GMOs, and an increased demand for locally produced organic agriculture are signs that the public is waking up and understanding the great peril that agricultural centralization poses to not only our health, but the health and wellbeing of our entire planet.
- Here's How (Rich & Poor) Americans Spend Their Time
Today’s visualization comes from data scientist Henrik Lindberg, and it shows America’s favorite past-times based on the participation of people in different income brackets.
It uses data from the American Time Use Survey that is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to break down these activities.
Courtesy of: Visual CapitalistCOMMON INTERESTS
As Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, while activities are all over the map, it appears that some past-times are more common across all income groups.
Team sports and solo pursuits both are represented well in the center. In fact, reading for personal interest, dancing, computer use, hunting, hiking, walking, playing basketball, or playing baseball can all be found in the middle of the spectrum, appealing to Americans in every income group.
Closer to the top and bottom of the visualization, however, we see where income groups diverge in how they spend their time. It’s probably not surprising to see that people with higher incomes spend more time golfing, playing racket sports, attending performing arts, and doing yoga than average. On the flipside, lower income Americans spend more time watching television, listening to the radio, and listening to/playing music.
CURIOUS ANOMALIES
Every data set has its own peculiarities. Sometimes these things can be explained, and sometimes they are just aberrations created as a result of how data was collected (i.e. how a survey was worded, bias, or some other error).
Here are some of the stranger anomalies that appear in this data set. We won’t attempt to explain them here, but feel free to speculate in the comments section:
- Higher income Americans disproportionately enjoy softball – while baseball has more universal appeal across income groups.
- While activities like boating are typically associated with higher income levels, the activity of running is generally not. Yet, running is disproportionately enjoyed by higher income Americans, according to this survey.
- Despite playing baseball being fairly universal across the spectrum, watching baseball skews higher income.
- Writing for personal interest has an interesting distribution: it is enjoyed disproportionately by poorer and richer Americans, but is underrepresented in the middle class.
Can you find anything else that stands out as being an anomaly?
- Former Investor Says Shkreli Reminded Him Of "Rain Man"
The prosecution in the trial of former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli called more investors to testify about alleged malfeasance by Shkreli during his time as a hedge-fund manager on Monday. And while two witnesses echoed earlier descriptions of Shkreli being evasive when investors asked for their money, both ultimately admitted that they were paid back with interest.
One corroborated an earlier witness’s claim that Shkreli became evasive when asked to return clients’ money, stalling for more than a year before making investors whole with questionable payouts from Retrophin, the pharmaceutical company he co-founded, as well as grants of Retrophin stock, which is now worth $20 a share.
Another played into the portrayal of Shkreli that defense attorney Benjamin Brafman has sought to sell to the jury: That any liberties taken by Shkreli were ultimately made in good faith, but his clients’ odd behavior and personality quirks at times caused friction between him and his clients.
Schuyler Marshall, chairman of the board of the real estate company Rosewood Corp, said the former drug company executive reminded him of Dustin Hoffman's autistic character in the movie "Rain Man," according to Reuters. Though Marshall added under cross-examination by Shkreli's lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, that he was not claiming Shkreli was autistic.
"'The reference here was that this was just an intensely focused, bright guy who knew his stuff,'" Marshall told jurors. Hoffman's character in the 1988 film is an autistic savant with exceptional mental abilities but difficulty relating to other people.
Like other investors who have testified in the trial, Marshall, who invested more than $200,000 in MSMB Capital, said that while Shkreli misled him about the fund's operations, he did not lose money. At one point, Marshall testified, he even used the phrase "no harm, no foul" in a communication with Shkreli.
'He paid back my investment and then some,' Marshall said.”
Shkreli is being tried on eight counts of securities fraud and wire fraud related to his time running two hedge funds, MSMB Capital and MSMB Healthcare, and a pharmaceutical company he founded called Retrophin. In particular, Shkreli has been accused of falsifying investor statements, backdating documents and misleading investors about his record as a fund manager. He also allegedly misstated how much money was in the funds, according to prosecutor G. Karthik Srinivasan, who, in his opening statement, accused Shkreli of being a “con man” who managed to convince his investors that he was “a Wall Street genius.”
Last week, judge Kiyo Matsumoto hit Shkreli with a partial gag order, prohibiting him from talking about his case in or around the Brooklyn courthouse after he went on a rant to reporters gathered there last week. The order leaves him free to speak with journalists and conduct his marathon livestreams on YouTube.
Another witness on Monday, the seventh day of a trial that’s expected to last for as long as six weeks, was somewhat less charitable.
Richard Kocher, 65, told a Brooklyn federal jury Monday that his construction business saw a deal fall apart while he begged Shkreli to return his investments in a hedge fund, but the former pharmaceutical executive told him he was too busy running his new drug company, according to Bloomberg.
Kocher told the Brooklyn jury that, in one of his first forays into the hedge fund world in early 2012, he put $100,000 into Shkreli’s fund because he was assured investors could get their money back anytime. In May 2012, Kocher said he bailed out the fund, putting in another $100,000 after one of Shkreli’s employees told him it had a shortfall. Shkreli announced in September of 2012 he was closing his funds to focus on Retrophin Inc., but promising customers a full refund or shares in the startup pharmaceutical company.
Kocher pleaded for his money for five months but said he got a “run around” and Shkreli only offered 23,654 shares of Retrophin stock, which at the time he couldn’t sell.
“When you were in trouble and needed $100,000, I wired it over to you the next day,” Kocher wrote Shkreli in a March 2013 email. “I expect to get, in addition to this (insulting) untradable stock” my money back, he wrote.
However, Kocher too was eventually paid back…with interest. Though he says it's hard to say if he ultimately came out ahead, given the opportunity costs.
“Shkreli eventually returned Kocher’s investments. Kocher also sold the Retrophin stock, after several years, making about $350,000 in total profit. But Kocher said he had to pay a lawyer, lost a business deal and lost time from his business, so he’s not sure if he ended up ahead.”
If convicted, Shkreli could face up to 20 years in prison. He has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence.
- Pissy Rant About IPO Prices
From the Slope of Hope: OK, time to unload………
It is Monday evening, and ever since the closing bell, I’ve been seeing story after story about how that piece-of-shit company SNAP is now below its IPO price. Huge publications – – hundreds of times larger than our beloved Slope – – are making hay out of this big event, with such headlines as this:
Now, there’s no reason to single out TechCrunch in particular, but I’ll do it all the same. As you can see, I’ve highlighted a particular sentence, which seems to assert, now that the closing price is below the IPO price (by all of a penny……..) that, at last, public investors at at last lost money on this. In other words, since it came public at $17, and has been trading above it ever since, everyone has been just fine and dandy until now.
Let me share my first reaction to this: AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Oh, and I’ll add ARRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, moving on………..
The young woman who wrote the story appears to be well-credentialed – – certainly far more than me – – as evidenced by her profile (and, let’s face it, her glasses):
But why……..WHY………does the business press continue to press forward this canard that the “public” all bought in at the IPO price?
Let’s take the chart of SNAP as the obvious example. Here’s the chart of its entire life as a public firm:
Let’s all get this nice and perfectly clear: the IPO price doesn’t necessarily have ANYTHING to do with what the public pays. NOTHING! Nada! Zilch!
The first public investors in SNAP paid $24 per share, not $17. That was the opening price on its first day of launch. The investment banks were delighted, of course, because they were, in fact, the ones who enjoyed the $17 price (a little less, but we’ll keep this simple) and got to sell it to the public for whatever the public was willing to pay.
So SNAP had a good first day (high of $26.05) and a good second day (high of $29.44).
And that, my friends, was the end of the SNAP success story. From then on, it sucked whale, and since that time, it has lost nearly HALF its value in a little over four months.
So ever since the SECOND DAY of the company’s public existence, this company has been a money loser for “investors”. The losing didn’t start just today. It started almost immediately after the public offering! And yet the web is littered with ludicrous nonsense like this:
The “return from IPO” was never 60% (except for the investment bankers). We’re talking about the PUBLIC here, right? The greatest return was actually 25% for the lucky bastard (if any, which I doubt) that bought at the open and sold at exactly the next day’s high.
So I hope I’ve made my point. My own view, as I’ve expressed countless times on Slope, is that SNAP is heading for the single digits, and it might not even exist as a public entity in a couple of years. I was very ambivalent about SNAP at first, but once I saw this cover story on Time in March, I knew they were doomed beyond redemption. The “genius” of Snapchat my ass……..
- "There Is A Dark Side To Our Species" This Is What People Fear The Most In A Societal Collapse…
Authored by Joshua Krause via ReadyNutrition.com,
There are a lot of reasons why people prep for disasters, but there’s one reason that’s far more popular than the others. What people fear most when they think about what would happen if society collapsed, isn’t hunger, disease, or exposure. They fear what other people might do to them when the chips are down. They worry that members of their community might hurt or kill them to survive.
And though most preppers won’t admit it, I think most of us fear what we might be capable of in a bad situation. We don’t have to find out if we have enough food stocked up in our pantries.
However, it should be noted that there is an alternate view on what most people will do if society collapses. For historians who study disasters and social collapse, there is hope that people won’t automatically turn into savages if the grid goes down. A writer for Slate recently interviewed several experts on this topic, and here’s what they had to say:
Can this ray of sunshine be trusted? I’d love to believe it can be. I asked Scott Knowles, a historian of disaster, what historians and sociologists who study collapses and disasters have to say. His answer: It depends. “We help, and also we don’t,” Knowles said in an email to me.
Over the years, academic researchers have gone back and forth on the question. “This whole area of work really got going in the Cold War when defense planners wanted to model post-[nuclear] attack scenarios,” Knowles wrote. The Disaster Research Center at Ohio State University (which has since moved to the University of Delaware) “did the work over years to model community response, and they pushed back strongly on the idea of social collapse—they found instead too much of the opposite—people converge on a disaster scene!”
And there are countless examples of people being altruistic and coming together during disasters; perhaps even more so than examples of people turning on each other.
In a 1961 paper (unpublished until 1996), sociologist Charles Fritz laid out the case for this “contrary perspective” that disasters and other majorly stressful events don’t necessarily result in social breakdown and trauma.
Fritz, who had begun his observations of disasters while stationed in Britain during the Blitz, reported that during that time he saw “a nation of gloriously happy people, enjoying life to the fullest, exhibiting a sense of gaiety and love of life that was truly remarkable,” with Britons reaching beyond class distinctions, sharing supplies, and talking to people they had never spoken with before.
Marshaling sociological and historical evidence, Fritz recounts example after example of people pulling together in the middle of tragedy: black and white police and militia members uniting to maintain order during the yellow fever epidemic in Memphis in 1878; enemies forgetting old quarrels during the German bombing of Krakow in World War II; community members reporting strengthened personal relationships with neighbors after the White County, Arkansas, tornado of 1952.
In general, researchers agree that people will try to form alliances and help each other.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. If humans didn’t have an inclination towards supporting each other, then we wouldn’t have a sophisticated society to begin with.
However, I think we all know that there is a dark side to our species as well, and many of the examples provided by the author don’t reflect that. It is true that we are a social species whose members would rather work together to build a society, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t disasters which could easily bring out the worst in us.
The best example that comes to my mind, is the Siege of Leningrad during World War Two. For more than two years, the city was encircled by German forces who cut off all supplies to the city. This led to the deaths of more than a million civilians, mainly due to starvation. And during that time there were thousands of people who were arrested for murdering others for their ration cards, or killing strangers and family members before cannibalizing them. And in most cases, these people were found to have no criminal records when they were caught.
Point being, there are disasters that will drive ordinary people to commit heinous crimes, and there’s a big difference between those incidents, and the disasters that don’t lead to massive crime waves. In most cases, a destructive event only leads to temporary disruptions to the supply of food, medicine and fuel. People are happy to work together, knowing that everything will return to normal in short order.
But on the rare occasion that a disaster disrupts the flow of goods and energy for months or years at a time, a significant percentage of the population will turn on their neighbors to survive. There’s a direct relationship between how desperate people are, and how far they’re willing to abandon their morality to keep themselves and their family fed, and that’s something that preppers should never forget.
- Packaged-Goods Companies Slash Marketing Spending As Amazon Makes Sales "All About Price"
Amazon’s dominance of all things retail-related in the US is starting to effect on how packaged goods are marketed: Big Brands are starting to give up on expensive advertising campaigns because customers no longer see the value in expert branding. Now, thanks to Jeff Bezos and his algorithms, they're fixated at finding the lowest price available.
According to MarketWatch, as Amazon and Wal-Mart make bigger pushes into the packaged-goods categories, brand names are spending less on marketing and backing away from their original models, James Cakmak, an analyst at Monness, Crespi, Hardt wrote in a Monday note. The $800 billion consumer packaged-goods category includes name-brand detergents, foods and personal care items, with large companies such as PepsiCo Inc., Johnson & JNJ and Mondelez International Inc.
“We see these companies starting to give up, and that’s a bad thing for the industry, consumers and the country,” Cakmak said.
Amazon’s Prime Service, which attracted millions of customers by offering two-day shipping, comprehensive music and movie libraries, monthly deals and even discounts to customers on government assistance. According to estimates from Morningstar, nearly 79 million U.S. households now have an Amazon Prime membership, up from around 66 million at the end of last year – a number that rivals the total cable subscribers in the US.
In the past, packaged-goods companies were able to dominate their sector by controlling how the goods were distributed and placed on the shelf at retail stores. With prime presentation in stores, the companies would spend heavily on marketing, which made up 20% to 25% of their budgets, to influence consumers’ buying decisions.
Now, instead of fighting for shelf space, Cakmak says the companies appear to be scaling back spending. In his quarterly check with major advertising agencies, he found that consumer packaged-goods companies were spending less on marketing. More worrying were reports that these companies were more focused on protecting the bottom line, rather than investing in growth and new innovative strategies to combat the online models.
Packaged-goods spending is also suffering as Americans face stagnant wage growth and rampant inflation in housing, health care and tuition costs.
Cakmak says this trend will only intensify with Amazon leading this change as it increases its push into food and other goods, with its own private label brands and its recent bid for Whole Foods Market Inc. Wal-Mart is also playing a part, as it has shifted more into e-commerce with its acquisition of Jet.com in August 2016 and its discounts for online orders.
With their fixation on price, Amazon and Wal-Mart have commodified packaged goods, transforming the market into one that’s dependent more on pricing than on brand reputation.
“Now it’s all about price, especially as Amazon and Wal-Mart fight on a race to the bottom,” Cakmak wrote.
Let the deflationary race-to-the-bottom price wars begin.
- Confiscation – The Second Half Of The Government's Pincer
Authord by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,
“Welcome to America, where your assets are literally the government’s business, and freedom is anything but free.”—Claire Bernish, The Free Thought Project
For some time, I’ve been forewarning readers that, as the governments of the former “free” world unravel, they’ll introduce capital controls, both to continue to fund their failing policies and to limit the freedom of their citizenries.
I’ve envisioned this as a “pincer” of sorts.
First, it would be necessary to institute laws that allow authorities to confiscate the assets of anyone whom they “suspected” of a crime. (It’s essential to understand that an actual arrest is unnecessary, as that would allow the individual the opportunity to prove his innocence in a trial. No trial means he can never regain the confiscated assets.)
The second half of the pincer would be a law requiring the reporting of assets – a detailed declaration of all monetary holdings. (Of course, it would not be possible to keep such reporting thoroughly up to date, as it would be ever-changing. This would ensure virtually continual guilt through the failure to report.)
Civil Asset Forfeiture
In observing the US, we’re witnessing the completion of the pincer. The first half has been in place for some time, under civil asset forfeiture laws. It’s been described as a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.
That concept may seem odd to the reader, as, surely, if someone had committed a crime, the authorities would wish to charge him, then see to it that he was tried in court, so that he could be punished for his transgressions.
But what if the individual in question was not, in the traditional sense, a criminal; that a law had been written that would effectively define virtually all citizens as criminals? And what if the objective were not to prosecute offenders, but simply to rob them of their possessions?
In this light, civil asset forfeiture makes complete sense. First, the authorities decide that they want to take what they desire from others. Then they target an individual who possesses desired assets (i.e., home, car, business, bank accounts, wealth in a safe deposit box, etc.). They then detain the individual, state that he’s suspected of a crime (suspected drug dealer? Terrorist sympathiser? Possible tax cheat?) and seize his assets.
In this scenario, the authorities are actually advantaged by not charging the individual. He has no recourse, as he can’t demand his day in court for a charge that hasn’t been laid against him. Therefore, he can’t regain his assets, and they become the property of the authorities.
Although civil asset forfeiture never seems to appear on the evening news, it’s not because it’s a minor operation. Indeed, the total annual take now exceeds that of the annual total for burglaries by traditional criminals (those who rob others without a badge).
Declaration of Assets
Considering the severity of the above, it would be difficult to imagine that civil asset forfeiture laws are only half of the pincer, yet that’s exactly the case.
The other half is Senate Bill 1241, which is intended “to improve the prohibitions on money laundering, and for other purposes.” It requires that anyone travelling beyond US borders declare his assets in writing and in detail, plus provide ongoing access to all accounts held by the individual. In essence, it’s providing the government with a license to track your cash, cryptocurrencies, and other assets in perpetuity. Should, at any point, your declaration come into question as to its accuracy, the entirety of those assets could be seized, not just those that were unreported. In addition, you could face a prison sentence of up to five years.
The bill also seeks to curtail the individual’s right to travel outside the US. Whilst this may seem to be a less significant loss, as compared to the above, it serves the purpose of making it impossible for the individual to escape the clutches of his government by relocating to another country. He is, in effect, a trapped rat.
In addition, he’s a trapped rat who, having lost his assets to arbitrary confiscation, has been crippled economically. He can no longer defend himself, as he no longer has the means to pay an attorney.
How This Is Likely to Play Out
At present, asset confiscation is undertaken largely at a local level. Police go after many people at random. However, they also have the ability to target specific individuals that they know of, either for personal reasons or because they feel the haul would be substantial. Senate Bill 1241 places the robberies on a national level. It provides a database by which authorities can review possible targets, based upon their assets. It also allows the authorities the opportunity to go after those people who behaved in a manner deemed unacceptable to authorities.
For example, a national repository of information would allow authorities to target specific individuals who questioned the government or sought to live independently of governmental controls. Both Aldous Huxley and George Orwell described this concept as being central to the assurance that all citizens would be fully compliant with their rulers’ edicts, 100% of the time. One deviation from acceptable behaviour could result in a total loss of assets and freedom.
It would work like this: Like the FATCA legislation in the US, the premise is:
-
An individual is required to provide a detailed report of his wealth (however small).
-
The regulatory body chooses to regard the report as “in error,” or “incomplete.”
-
The law then allows all the assets to be confiscated, including those portions that were correctly reported.
Of course, we’d like to think that no reasonable government would abuse power in this way. Unfortunately, history shows that any government that issues a license to itself to rob its citizenry, invariably uses (and abuses) that license.
The beauty of such a system is that it need not be enforced often. Once people understand that, at any moment, they could lose everything and have no recourse whatsoever, they learn to keep their heads down and be compliant.
From that point on, fear of government is a constant, and the population is effectively under house arrest.
In the late eighteenth century, American founding father Thomas Jefferson reportedly stated, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
When a country degrades to the point that the government can grip its people in the pincers of arbitrary loss of assets, with no chance of recompense through the justice system, it’s safe to say that people can plan on henceforth living in fear.
* * *
The pincer’s grip grows tighter by the day… Unfortunately, the coming global economic crisis will only make the bankrupt US government a more aggressive thief. If you haven’t taken steps to protect your money, it’s almost too late. This is a frightening truth. But if you act now, you can still do something about it. New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team can show you concrete ways to protect your financial freedom. Click here for the details.
-
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...