- "He Won Because The Elites Want Him There, The Global Economy Will Collapse"
Though Trump’s election was a great victory/rebuke over the dictates and controls of the financial oligarchy that own and run this nation, SHTFPlan.com's Mac Salvo warns, the American people are not out of the woods yet.
Quietly but constantly in the background of the entire Obama Administration, the Federal Reserve’s stimulus program that combined unlimited QE with zero percent interest rates has absolutely wrecked this country and its economic stability.
The system as we know it cannot be sustained. Yellen and co. have been simply waiting for the right time to let the other shoe drop – namely, after it could influence the election even further in the direction of Trump’s populist uprising. Unfortunately, he will now be largely blamed for the great destruction that is scheduled to fall upon this nation. In fact, that is the very reason that Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com attributed to Trump’s victory when he predicted his election many months ago.
Something big is coming… prepare yourselves accordingly.
How Alt-Market Predicted Trump’s Win Months in Advance: “He won because the elites WANT HIM THERE, the global economy WILL collapse”
Authored by Melissa Dykes via The Daily Sheeple,
While many of us in the alternative media and especially those researchers of Clinton crimes are breathing a big fat sigh of relief that anybody but Hillary is headed to the White House in 2017, Brandon Smith of Alt Market is warning us all not to get too comfortable… and with history on his side here, we should listen to him.
Despite what looked like a rigged, fraudulent Hillary win orchestrated from the top down with the entire establishment machine behind her, Trump won the election. In an election year that would have otherwise seen record low voter turnout, the specter of Hillary that led to Trump’s victory has now given the people a reason to believe their vote actually matters again, an extra boon to further relegitimize the corrupt system running things in this country.
But Smith reminds us that if Trump is walking into the Oval Office in January, it is only because the elites decided to put him there in advance — and for a reason.
First it should be noted that Smith accurately predicted that Brexit would pass, even when the majority of the alt media was reporting that there was no way it possibly could. Was it another victory for the people?
No, it was predetermined well in advance:
“The mainstream media has been consistently comparing Trump supporters to Brexit supporters, and Trump himself has hitched his political wagon to the Brexit. This fits perfectly with the globalist narrative that populists and conservatives are killing the global economy and placing everyone at risk.“
Then he accurately predicted a Trump win… but not because voting actually matters:
“U.S. elections are indeed controlled, and have been for decades, primarily through the false left/right paradigm. However, as I have been pointing out since I correctly predicted the success of the Brexit referendum, I don’t think that Clinton is the choice of the elites.”
“To be clear, my position is that Trump is slated to take the White House and that this is by design. This has been my position since before Trump won the Republican Primaries, it was my position when the election cycle began, it has never changed, nor have my views on the reasons for this outcome ever changed…”
Smith says regardless of whether or not Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment candidate, his win means the global economic collapse the system has been holding off on will finally come to pass — as planned — under Trump’s watch:
“…Even if Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment conservative, his entry into the Oval Office will seal the deal on the economic collapse, and will serve the globalists well. The international banks need only pull the plug on any remaining life support to the existing market system and allow it to fully implode, all while blaming Trump and his conservative supporters…”
He will be the perfect scapegoat for something the alternative media have known is coming for a long, long time.
Now Smith is spelling it out:
The bottom line is, Trump is on the way to the White House because the elites WANT HIM THERE. Now, many liberty proponents, currently in a state of elation, will either ignore or dismiss the primary reason why I was able to predict the Brexit and a Trump win. These will probably be some of the same people that were arguing with me only weeks ago that the elites would NEVER allow Trump in office.
So, to clarify:
Trump may or may not be aware that he and his conservative followers have been positioned into a a trap. We will have to wait and see how he behaves in office (and he WILL be in office, despite the claims of some that the elites will try to “stop him” before January). My primary point is THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER, at least not at this stage. The elites will initiate a final collapse of the global economy under Trump’s watch (this will probably escalate over the course of the next six months), and they WILL blame him and conservatives in general. This IS going to happen. The elites play the long game, and so must we.
And there you have it.
It’s not much of a secret that the economy is being artificially propped up. The Fed’s QE stimulus programs are no longer working. We know it can’t remain this way forever.
And even though everyone just feels so much relief that we’ve all been spared the nightmare of Hillary Clinton climbing into yet another seat of even more power, we can’t just assume we’re all going to skip off into happy magical fairy sprinkle land unscathed.
Sure, the people have spoken, but it’s only the illusion of power that we’re seeing play out now. The Powers That Shouldn’t Be running this insanity circus always have a plan… how else have they gotten away with controlling the globe for at least the past century?
After saying “I told ya so,” Smith issued a final warning that we shouldn’t be so naive:
While millions of Americans are celebrating Trump’s win today, I will remain even more vigilant. The party is just getting started, folks. Don’t get too comfortable.
Sadly, we can’t ignore decades of New World Order history here just because we’re relieved a psychopath like Hillary lost the election. Smith is right. We’d all do well to listen to him and get prepared for what’s coming.
2017 is going to be a bumpy ride.
- More Troubling Signs For NYC Real Estate As Rent Concessions Soar
The October 2016 Douglas Elliman Real Estate Guide for Manhattan reveals some fairly startling hints about the “health” of NYC real estate. For months we’ve been writing about the soaring capacity of luxury apartment buildings in New York City and it looks as though that capacity influx is starting to take a toll as the percentage of rental inventory offering landlord concessions soared to 23.9% in October, more than double the 10.4% recorded last October.
The market continues to be softest at the top. Luxury median sales price declined 10.9% to $7,792 over the same period and the largest decline in more than 4 years. The market share for landlord concessions more than doubled to 23.9% from the same period last year to the highest share in 6 years this metric has been tracked. As a result, net effective median rent fell 1% to $3,322 from the same period last year. Days on market, the number of days from the original list date to the lease date, expanded by 6 days to an average of 46 days. Listing discount, the percentage from the original list price to the rental price, rose to 3.1% rom 2.3% in the same month a year ago.
The percent of rental inventory granting landlord concessions has surged in recent months as building owners attempt to fill new apartment capacity. As Bloomberg points out, with several buildings still under construction, the surge in new high-end capacity shows no signs of abating at any point in the new future.
Lease-signing sweeteners, such as a month of free rent or payment of broker fees, were offered on 24 percent of new rental agreements in October, up from 10 percent a year earlier, according to a report Thursday by appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. It was the biggest share for any month since the firms began tracking the data six years ago. Landlords also agreed to cut an average of 3.1 percent from their asking rents in order to reach a deal.
Property owners in Manhattan are working harder to lure tenants who now have the ability to bargain-shop amid a surge of high-end apartment construction that shows no signs of abating. The final months of the year are considered to be the slowest time for apartment leasing in New York City, adding to the urgency for landlords, said Jonathan Miller, president of Miller Samuel.
“Concessions are one way to keep the vacancy rate in check and keep the buildings as full as possible,” Miller said in an interview. “It’s a baseline metric we’re going to be dealing with for the next several years, at least.”
Meanwhile, it’s not just new capacity that’s putting pressure on rental prices and concessions. As the following chart highlights, new leases signed in recent months have also been falling with October new leases down 3.9% YoY and nearly 23% sequentially.
Rental days on the market also increased by 15% YoY to 46 days while listing discounts increased 80 bps to 3.1% of the original listing price.
Finally, listing inventory in Manhattan is up nearly 23% YoY while Jonathan Miller, President of New York City appraiser Miller Samuel, warned “This is probably not a temporary blip.”
“There must be great concern because of how much competition has been added to the market over the last couple of years,” Miller said. “This is probably not a temporary blip.”
For Manhattan apartments, the median rent rose 0.3 percent from a year earlier to $3,400 a month, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said. But when factoring in the value of concessions, the median actually declined by 1 percent.
“Incentives remain the preferred alternative for owners to keep face rents high while creating a sense of value in the marketplace,” Gary Malin, president of brokerage Citi Habitats, said in a separate report on the rental market Thursday.
The fancier and more costly the apartment, the more landlords had to offer enticements. In Manhattan buildings with doormen, 31 percent of new leases last month came with incentives, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said. In buildings without lobby attendants, sweeteners were given on 17 percent of new agreements.
With trends like this, Jimmy McMillan may be able to retire soon.
- Trump Voter Beaten By Black Mob: "You Voted Trump. You Gonna Pay For That Sh*t"
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson, originally posted at InfoWars.com,
Shocking video out of Chicago shows a mob of young black men viciously beating an older white man because he voted for Donald Trump, dragging him through the streets as he hangs out of the back of his car.
The clip shows the thugs repeatedly screaming, “you voted Donald Trump” as they assault the victim from every angle while others steal his belongings.
“You voted Trump,” the mob screams, “You gonna pay for that sh*t.”
Another woman shouts “beat his ass,” while another man is heard laughing before remarking, “Don’t vote Trump.”
A second video of the incident which is dubbed with the “F**k Donald Trump” song, a phrase now being chanted by “protesters” across the country, shows one of the attackers driving away in the man’s vehicle while his hand is still stuck in the window as the car drags him down the street.
“The scene is frankly reminiscent of a lynching,” remarks Chris Menahan.
It is not even clear if the victim was a Trump supporter. Presumably, the mob used that as an excuse to beat and rob him.
YouTube quickly deleted the video, but it has been mirrored on numerous different websites.
If the roles had been reversed, and Trump supporters had been caught on tape viciously beating a black Hillary voter, this would be a national news story right now.
As it is, you won’t see this on CNN any time soon.
Violence and retribution for the election of Trump has proven to be the result of a media-driven attack on his character. For months now, the pundits and columnists have done nothing but tell the population that Trump supporters are racists, etc. and now racially-motivated beatings are taking place in the street without any other pretext or provocation.
Are they proud of themselves yet? And how far will this violence spread?
- Grubhub CEO Faces Backlash After Telling Trump-Supporting Employees "You Have No Place Here"
Many faux-liberal tech firm CEOs have responded to the election of Donald Trump in the same "stunned" memos to staff reassuring them "our firm is a safe space" with some even promising to fund a so-called CaliExit secession from the Union. However, as Fox News reports, GrubHub CEO Matt Maloney has – to some who have begun to boycott the food-delivery app – gone too far by implying in a company-wide email that Trump-supporting staff are not welcome and should resign.
“If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here,” wrote Matt Maloney, Co-Founder of Grubhub. “We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team."
Maloney, a Hillary Clinton supporter, sent the email Wednesday afternoon with the subject line, “So…that happened…what’s next?”
He made it clear in the email statement that he is personally stunned and deeply concerned with the results of Tuesday’s election.
“I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can,” Maloney wrote about Trump’s supporters.
“I want to reaffirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States.”
The CEO made it clear he’s particularly concerned Trump’s victory will empower others in his workplace to act out against marginalized groups.
“While demeaning, insulting, and ridiculing minorities, immigrants, and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior — and these views — have no place at Grubhub,” Maloney explained.
Ironically, the CEO said that he deeply respects the right of people to vote for whoever they decide, but that he simply wanted to “reassure our employees that our company will actively support diversity and inclusion — regardless of national politics."
As Fox concludes, this letter is noteworthy because it underscores the fine-line between the intersection of politics and business, especially given the divisive presidential campaign of the past year and a half.
However, the backlash had already begun and, in a tweet that was later deleted, Maloney added: "To be clear, GrubHub does not tolerate hate and we are proud of all our employees – even those who voted for Trump."
As The Chicago Tribune reports, in a statement posted by Grubhub later Thursday evening, Maloney said his comments had been misconstrued.
"I want to clarify that I did not ask for anyone to resign if they voted for Trump," the statement said. "I would never make such a demand."
By Thursday afternoon, Twitter users were calling others to #boycottgrubhub.
#BoycottGrubhub! There's no place in the world for this type of fascist intolerance! https://t.co/jXfHPPo5iv
— Deplorable Dennis (@Dennis_QH3) November 10, 2016
- Calexit – California Secession Petition Gaining Strength After Trump Win
A group of secessionists in California are taking advantage of post-election discontent and re-introducing their petition to make California its own country. Apparently, the liberal elites of California aren’t big fans of Donald Trump…who knew?
According to the Sacramento Bee, support for the “The 2019 #Calexit Independence Referendum” is gaining some momentum after devastated Hillary supporters received their bad news on Tuesday night.
About 11,000 people liked the Facebook page for the “Yes California Independence Campaign” as of Tuesday night. By midday Wednesday, it had grown to nearly 17,000 likes and counting.
“Obviously it was a huge boost for the movement because Californians hate Donald Trump,” said Marcus Ruiz Evans, vice president of the group.
The hashtag #Calexit was already trending on Twitter and Facebook on Wednesday. Posts ranged from Shervin Pishevar, a Bay Area venture capitalist and tech entrepreneur, calling for the state to secede, to conservatives welcoming a California-less nation.
Ruiz Evans said Yes California intends to launch an initiative that asks Californians whether they believe the state should remain part of the United States or break away on its own. Similar to the Citizens United ballot measure voters approved Tuesday, it would begin as an advisory proposal to kick-start an arduous process.
The results will serve as a rallying cry and give the campaign credibility with lawmakers, he said. If passed, it would call for a special election and official vote on whether California should become its own country. Ultimately, Congress and the states would likely have to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“The reason that we’re here today is we wanted to point out to everybody in California that the American system is broken. It’s failing. It’s sinking,” he said. “You as a Californian have a choice to make: Do you go down with that ship out of tradition or sail on your own?”
Apparently the group’s leadership is convinced that California’s economic problems are the direct result of their statehood as opposed to the failed liberal agenda of their elected officials. The group’s website lays out a myriad of reasons for secession but summarizes that “the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values.”
In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children.
Although charity is part of our culture, when you consider that California’s infrastructure is falling apart, our public schools are ranked among the worst in the entire country, we have the highest number of homeless persons living without shelter and other basic necessities, poverty rates remain high, income inequality continues to expand, and we must often borrow money from the future to provide services for today, now is not the time for charity.
However, this independence referendum is about more than California subsidizing other states of this country. It is about the right to self-determination and the concept of voluntary association, both of which are supported by constitutional and international law.
It is about California taking its place in the world, standing as an equal among nations. We believe in two fundamental truths: (1) California exerts a positive influence on the rest of the world, and (2) California could do more good as an independent country than it is able to do as a just a U.S. state.
In 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the international community with their “Brexit” vote. Our “Calexit” referendum is about California joining the international community. You have a big decision to make.
While this will unfortunately never come to a fruition, we suspect after Tuesday’s election results that, outside of a couple of major metro areas in the Northeast, a lot of people in this country would be quiet happy to be rid of their leftist west coast state.
- China 'Devalues' Yuan To Weakest Since Breaking The Peg In 2010
With offshore Yuan tumbling in recent days – echoing the collapse in US Treasury bond prices – the spread to the onshore fix appears to have forced the PBOC’s hand. With a 200 pip cut in the CNY fix tonight, China has all but erased any strength in the Renminbi against the USD since it broke the peg (“enabled more flexibility”) in June 2010.
- CHINA SETS YUAN FIXING AT 6.8115 VS 6.7885 DAY EARLIER
Given the wakness in the Reniminbi basket, one could argue that the Yuan could be sold against the USD considerably more to catch down to the pressure that other major basket currencies have been under…
With US Treasury market closed tomorrow, one wonders where China’s wrath will fall…
- Canadian Parliament Condemns Free Speech
Submitted by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,
- "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning." — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
- What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
- The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
- In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
- As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion.
On October 26, Canada's parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. The petition garnered almost 70,000 signatures.
According to the text of the petition,
"Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia".
The Parliament of Canada, in Ottawa. (Image source: Saffron Blaze/Wikimedia Commons)
While a motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning "all forms of Islamophobia," without making the slightest attempt at defining what is meant by "Islamophobia," can only be described, at best, as alarming.
What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
No one knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is what he had to say in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:
"Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning … We need to continue working politically and socially and with the press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada's supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all ethnicities… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies."
Whereas the Canadian parliamentarians seem entirely unaware of what Muslim organizations have in store for them in terms of "comprehensive policies", it is clear that to the parliamentarians, the motion constitutes "virtue-signaling" at its worst. Whereas the parliamentarians might now feel good about themselves, does their vote mean that those Canadians who dare to criticize Islam and disagree vehemently with the premises of the motion are likely to be considered (even more) beyond the pale of civilized society? Does it mean that only one view is correct and that any view that differs from it will now be, by default, incorrect — if not criminal?
It will almost certainly deter people from speaking up, for fear that they will be labeled "racists" or "Islamophobes" by arbitrarily creating a threatening atmosphere of political correctness, where those who do not adhere to the groupthink are shamed and ostracized. Such strangulation of opinion also cannot be beneficial to any country's national security. How can anyone warn the authorities about virtually anything if they have to worry first that their warning might be considered "Islamophobic"?
There were, of course, no parallel motions in Canada's parliament to condemn "Christianophobia" or "Judeophobia," the latter being much more prevalent than "Islamophobia." In fact, according to statistics, Jewish Canadians are more than 10 times as likely to be the victim of a hate crime than Muslim Canadians.
It was exactly this kind of toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the United States that enabled Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to gun down 13 people and to wound 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. His former classmate, Lt. Col. Val Finnell, told Fox news at the time that, despite Hasan's suspicious behavior, such as giving a presentation justifying suicide bombings, nothing was done about Hasan to see if he might be a security risk. Instead, he was treated with kid gloves. "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit", said Lt. Col. Finnell.
In December 2015, a man who had been working in the area where the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook lived told CBS Los Angeles that,
"he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people. "We sat around lunch thinking, 'What were they doing around the neighborhood?'" he said.
The fear of being labeled an "Islamophobe" is real and has had lethal consequences. It is this fear that the Canadian parliament has now elevated into a parliamentary motion, signaling that this sentiment is shared by the highest echelons in the country, those who make the laws.
A democratic parliament presumably should not be cowing its citizens into silence. The term "bullying" comes to mind. Parliamentary bullying and reckless disregard of the freedom of speech should have no place in a society that cares about the values of freedom and national security. Canada has already seen, to its disgrace, attacks on free speech against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, among others. Is this the country Canada wishes to become?
The motion is reminiscent of the US House Resolution 569, "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States," which was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 17, 2015. This Resolution is more detailed than the short condemnation of Islamophobia from the Canadian parliament, but the essence of both appears to be the same: Criticism of Islam or of Muslims is wrong and should be condemned, if not outright criminalized.
In condemning "all forms of Islamophobia", Canada's parliament has in effect done everything the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — consisting of 56 Muslim states plus "Palestine" — could wish for. Fighting "Islamophobia" is at the very top of the agenda of this organization, which is headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The OIC is aggressively promoting the so-called Istanbul Process, which aims to forbid all criticism of Islam and make this ban a part of international law.
Ironically, the Saudi Arabian flag flew on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on November 2, as Canadian public officials met with a so-called "human rights" commission from Saudi Arabia. This commission publicly supported Saudi Arabia's mass executions in January 2016, in which 47 people were executed by the authorities, saying that they "enforce justice, fulfill … legitimate and legal requirements, and protect the society and its security and stability". That, apparently, is not problematic in the eyes of Canadian parliamentarians.
As recently as October 24, the General Secretariat of the OIC held a meeting "to review the media strategy for countering Islamophobia". The meeting was scheduled to:
"discuss the OIC media strategy and ways to counter Islamophobia in light of the recent developments and hate campaigns in different parts of the world, especially with the increasing number of Muslim refugees in Western countries and the mounting hate discourse in a manner that causes serious concern. The meeting aims to come up with clear and practical mechanisms for a counter-Islamophobia media campaign that highlights the true noble image of Islamic and contributes to halting the ongoing deliberate defamatory campaigns waged in different Western fora".
The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The OIC is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013. The OIC also recently formed the so-called Contact Group for Muslims in Europe, whose formation was announced at the OIC Istanbul Summit in April 2016, and includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Malaysia and Jordan.
The establishment of the OIC Contact Group for Muslims in Europe
"aims at ensuring the effective cooperation between the relevant parties, in order to lay out strategies to eliminate hate speech, physical assault, practices of intolerance, prejudice, racial discrimination and Islamophobia, and to support intercultural dialogue and social inclusion. Further, the Group can be a platform through which Muslims from various nationalities can exchange experiences, define best practices, with a view to increase Muslim participation in the political and social life in Europe". [emphasis added]
The EU apparently sees the OIC as a friendly and benevolent organization with shared values. According to the EU's European External Action service (its diplomatic service, which assists the EU's foreign affairs chief):
"The OIC has undergone important changes during the last decade: it made advances in support of freedom of speech and freedom of religion/belief. It enlarged its cooperation to economic, cultural, development and humanitarian fields."
Seriously? In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
As the OIC steps up its media campaign and its efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be happy to facilitate such a motion.
- Russell Napier Interviewed: Fiscal Stimulus Comes With Dangerous Baggage – Financial Repression
Financial repression is coming to Europe and the people that can’t see that don’t have a strong understanding of financial history and the lengths that politicians will go to get re-elected. That’s the view of financial historian and strategist Russell Napier, who thinks that the failure of central banks to reflate the global financial system will lead to stronger and more significant government action.
Napier is the co-founder of online research platform ERIC and the author of Anatomy of the Bear: Lessons from Wall Street’s Four Great Bottoms. In an interview with Real Vision TV, he envisions a sharp change in momentum from governments, starting with Europe, which is in a clear state of policy paralysis. Items on the policy menu include capital controls, dividend controls and the forced purchase of government debt.
Manipulated by the System with a Deluge of Monetary PolicyWhile professional investors have learned how to play the game against central bankers, who are not too dissimilar to investors themselves – being forward looking and focused on inflation – Napier said they have been “royally gamed by the financial system” on a diet of monetary policy more monetary policy and more monetary policy.
“But if it switches to government, then I think it’s a completely different game,” he said. “We’ve seen a little bit of it already in terms of government action, regulation, forcing people to buy that debt. But primarily, that debt’s been bought by central bankers,” he said.
It’s clear now that central banking isn’t working in terms of reflating the economy and its failure to produce nominal GDP growth above the growth in debt, is now leading some to believe that a fiscal solution is coming. But if people are getting excited about that, then Napier thinks they couldn’t be more wrong.
Fiscal Expansion Comes with Dangerous Baggage – The Tools of Financial Repression
“The nine most dangerous words in the English language are: ‘We’re from the government and we’re here to help you,’” he told Real Vision. “So to me it’s bizarre that people who are the stewards of other people’s capital are getting really excited because the government is coming,” adding that a fiscal expansion is likely to come with a lot of dangerous baggage.
These are the tools of financial repression and Napier said the first thing to understand about the government is that they don’t give up, they want to get re-elected and they’ll come back with something else. And once you go down the rabbit hole of financial repression then one control eventually leads to another.
It all starts with keeping the yield curve below inflation, which is easy enough for investors who will simply not buy any bonds, but that of course will encourage borrowing, which is what the government is trying to discourage, Napier says.
“So they have to bring in other things, measures, to stop you and I gearing up, which is the elements of financial repression. They have to try and force you and I to buy government debt even though it is a virtually guaranteed loss-making proposition, and they have to bring in controls that would stop us behaving naturally as a response to negative real interest rates. Now, those historically have been some horrific things.”
Who’s Going to Buy the Government Debt ? You Are !
While the first main tool of financial repression has to be capital controls, Napier said it won’t just stop there, with dividend controls and higher corporate profits among the tactics designed to make other investments look less attractive, relative to government debt
“A lot of people think central bankers will keep going forever, but if we ever go to inflation, they clearly have to stop expanding their balance sheet, but somebody has to buy the government debt,” he said. “So let’s say the fiscal policy comes. It succeeds. We get growth. We get inflation. Central bank balance sheets cannot expand in the growth and inflation. So who’s going to buy the government debt? The answer is you are. Particularly if you work for a regulated financial institution. It’s much better if you’re an individual. But regulated financial institutions are the people who will be expected to do that, and that is financial repression.”
The Focus is Productive Growth – Not Speculative Growth
Over the past thirty years, it’s been an easy job for investors to buy an asset, gear up and wait for the profits, but not necessarily in an era where debt is supposed to grow more slowly than GDP and Napier said it is clear there will need to be a period of adjustment where the flow of credit needs to be controlled. “It has to go to what they will define as productive, not speculative,” he said. “And I think Theresa May may have already used that phrase.
“So we could be looking at a prolonged period of re-equitization of the whole financial system. It would happen tomorrow morning on the passage of one piece of legislation. The government bans the ability to deduct interest in the computation of corporation tax.”
“Instantly, you’ve got a huge change. Now, do you think asset prices would go up in that environment? It seems to me that that policy, actually, would be a prime policy for financial repression. And I think if you take a longer term view– if you look at the structure of what we’ve built, it wouldn’t be a bad thing in the long term. You’d have to phase it in slowly.”
Europe is the Battleground for Financial Repression
The economic and political problems in Europe are well documented and this is where we could see the start of financial repression, Napier contends. In fact, its already been introduced twice with two countries having exchange controls imposed on them in the single currency block.
“Everything’s possible. And the political justifications are Europe is going through a major reconsideration of its constitutional relationship. It’s deciding whether it’s going to have fiscal integration or not fiscal integration,” Napier said. “Now, against the background of that we can’t have the financial professionals front-running all of that.”
No-one really cares about the call for capital controls when it’s happening in places like Greece and Cyprus, he adds, but if it happens in one market where people have significant liquid assets, then that changes everything.
That is the crucial thing about the global impact of this,” Napier said, “If you de-liquify a major asset class– which is what a capital control does. It’s a de-liquefication event. As we know from financial history, that can be a solvency event for somebody. So that’s why I think it’s important.
“You have to rank things by their probability and their importance. I think this is probable, and I think it changes the 21st century,” he said, adding that when he speaks to investment managers about it, they just want him to phone them up the day before it happens, which sums up the problem as far as he is concerned. “We have to ride this to the end,” Napier said. “I think if you’re a steward of other people’s money and savings and their savings for their pensions and their retirement, you don’t get to leave the party at one minute to midnight.”
It all Comes Down to Financial History
What it all boils down to is a lack of understanding and appreciation of financial history, which isn’t taught in business school, but it’s a subject close to Napier’s heart, which he has written and taught about at length. He’s even opened a library in Edinburgh, dedicated to financial history, called ‘The Library of Mistakes’.
“They just don’t get it. They can’t cope with it. They don’t want to analyze it. They don’t want to talk about it. As far as they’re concerned, I’ll just buy good companies. I’ll stick with good companies. Everything will be fine. That will be what I’ll do,” he said.
“Now, that didn’t work out so well in the great financial crisis. Nothing to do with politicians, but to do with more not understanding money and credit. But this time, they don’t want to get to grips with the politicians.”
With Europe now in the process of potentially dissolving the euro for political reasons – nothing to do with economics and finance, which Napier said should have meant it would have been falling apart for years – it really highlights that politicians have been prepared to bend just about every rule to make it work
“Clearly if you’ve read a bit of financial history, you can’t forecast with 100 degree accuracy. But politicians may ultimately be more forecast-able than the prices you’re trying to forecast every day,” he said.
Watch the full interview on Real Vision TV , a dedicated financial television service featuring in-depth interviews with many of the worlds most respected investors, analysts, investment strategists and geopolitical analysts. No ads, no bias, no bullshit. Try it free for 7 days.
- The Unbearable Smugness Of The American Media
Submitted by Will Rahn via CBS News
The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.
This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.
So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.
It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?
We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.
You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.
This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!
That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.
Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological.
That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong.
As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further — fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup — which starts the cycle anew.
There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well.
Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.
What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.
We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...