- World War III Already Happened, America Is A Simulation
World War III Already Happened, America Is A Simulation
Authored (satiricially) by CJ Hopkins via The Unz Review,
So, 2020 is off to an exciting start. It’s barely the middle of January, and we’ve already made it through World War III, which was slightly less apocalyptic than expected. Forensic teams are still sifting through the ashes, but preliminary reports suggest that the global capitalist empire has emerged from the carnage largely intact.
It started in the Middle East, of course, when Donald Trump (a “Russian-asset”) ordered the murder of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani outside the Baghdad Airport, presumably after clearing it with Putin, which, given Iran and Russia’s relationship, doesn’t really make much sense.
But whatever. According to the U.S. government and the corporate media, Soleimani was a “terrorist,” who had been working with Assad (another “terrorist”) to destroy ISIS (who are also “terrorists”) and elements of Al-Qaeda (who used to be “terrorists”) with the support of the Russians (who are kind of “terrorists”) and doing all sorts of other unspecified but allegedly imminent “terrorist” things.
Apparently, Soleimani had flown to Baghdad on a secret commercial “terrorist” flight and was on his way to some kind of covert “terrorist” diplomatic meeting to respond to a de-escalation proposal from Saudi Arabia (who are definitely not “terrorists”) when the U.S. military preventatively murdered him with a General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9B Reaper drone.
Iran (officially a “terrorist” country since January 1979, when they overthrew the brutal Western puppet that the CIA and MI6 had installed as their “Shah” in 1953, after they regime-changed the Iranian prime minister, after he nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later to be known as British Petroleum) reacted to the preventative murder of their “terrorist” general like a bunch of “terrorists.”
The Ayatollah Khamenei (you guessed it, a “terrorist”) issued a series of “terrorist” threats against the 50,000 U.S. military personnel more or less completely surrounding his country on bases all across the Middle East. Millions of Iranians (currently “terrorists,” except for members of MeK), who, according to the U.S. officials, hated Soleimani, took to the streets of Tehran and other cities to mourn his death, burn American flags, and chant “death to America” and other “terrorist” slogans.
The empire went to DEFCON 1.
The 82nd Airborne was activated. The State Department advised Americans vacationing in Iraq to get the hell out of there. #worldwar3 started trending on Twitter.
Freedom-loving countries throughout the region stood by to be annihilated. Saudi Arabia postponed its previously scheduled weekend edition of public head-chopping. Israel dialed up its non-existent nukes. The Kuwaitis posted armed guards on their incubators. The Qataris, Bahrainians, United Arab Emiratis, and other loyal empire outposts did whatever those folks do when they’re facing nuclear Armageddon.
In the U.S.A., it was mass hysteria. The corporate media starting pumping out stories about Soleimani having “blood on his hands,” and being “the number one terrorist in the world,” and having ruthlessly genocided hundreds of American soldiers, who, back in 2003, had preventatively invaded and destroyed Iraq and were preventatively slaughtering and torturing its people to keep them from attacking America with their non-existent WMDs.
Americans (most of whom had never even heard of Soleimani until their government murdered him, and many of whom can’t find Iran on a map) took to Twitter to call for the immediate nuking of Iran from orbit. Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered a division of heavily-armed anti-“terror” forces to stand around in New York City with their rifles in the classic “sling-ready” position to prevent the Iranians from swimming the Atlantic (along with their communist killer dolphins), crawling up onto East Hampton Beach, taking the LIRR into town, and committing some devastating “terrorist” atrocity that would be commemorated throughout eternity on key rings, T-shirts, and jumbo coffee mugs.
Trump, disciplined Russian agent that he is, held his nerve and maintained his cover, performing his “total moron” act as only a seasoned Russian operative can. While Iran was still mourning, he started publicly jabbering about Soleimani’s dismembered corpse, bombing Iranian cultural sites, and otherwise bombastically taunting Iranlike an emotionally-challenged street-corner drunk. His strategy was clearly to convince the Iranians (and the rest of the world) that he is a dangerous imbecile who will murder the officials of any foreign government that Mike Pompeo tells him to, and then incinerate their museums and mosques, and presumably the rest of their “shithole” countries, if they even think about retaliating.
Nevertheless, retaliate the Iranians did. In a sadistic display of cold-hearted “terrorism,” they launched a firestorm of ballistic “terror” missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq, killing no one and injuring no one, but damaging the hell out of some empty buildings, a helicopter, and a couple of tents. First, though, in order to maximize the “terror,” they called the Swiss embassy in Tehran and asked them to warn the U.S. military that they would be launching missiles at their bases shortly. As the Moon of Alabama website reported:
“The Swiss embassy in Tehran, which represents the U.S., was warned at least one hour before the attack happened. Around 0:00 UTC the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) which prohibited civil U.S. flights over Iraq, Iran, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.”
In the wake of the Iranians’ devastating counter-strike, and the mass-non-casualties resulting therefrom, anyone with an Internet connection or access to a television descended into their anti-terror bunkers and held their breath in anticipation of the nuclear hell Trump was sure to unleash. I confess, even I tuned into his speech, which was one of the most disturbing public spectacles I have ever witnessed.
Trump burst through the doors of the White House Grand Foyer, dramatically backlit, freshly “tanned,” scowling like a WWF wrestler, and announced that, as long as he is president, “Iran will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons” … as if any of the events of the preceding week had had anything to do with nuclear weapons (which the Iranians don’t need and do not want, except in some neoconservative fantasy wherein Iran intends to commit national suicide by nuking Israel off the face of the Earth).
I didn’t make it through his entire address, which he delivered in a breathless, robotic staccato (possibly because Putin, or Mike Pompeo, was dictating it word-for-word into his earpiece), but it was clear from the start that all-out, toe-to-toe nuclear combat with the Axis of Resistance, or the Axis of Terror, or the Axis of Evil, or the Axis of Whatever, had been averted.
But, seriously, all mass hysteria aside, despite whatever atrocities are still to come, World War III is not going to happen. Why, you ask, is it not going to happen? OK, I’ll tell you, but you’re not going to like it.
World War III is not going to happen because World War III already happened … and the global capitalist empire won. Take a look at these NATO maps (make sure to explore all the various missions). Then take a look at this Smithsonian map of where the U.S. military is “combating terrorism.” And there are plenty of other maps you can google. What you will be looking at is the global capitalist empire. Not the American empire, the global capitalist empire.
If that sounds like a distinction without a difference … well, it kind of is, and it kind of isn’t. What I mean by that is that it isn’t America (i.e., America the nation-state, which most Americans still believe they live in) that is militarily occupying much of the planet, making a mockery of international law, bombing and invading other countries, and assassinating heads of state and military officers with complete impunity. Or, rather, sure, it is America … but America is not America.
America is a simulation. It is the mask the global capitalist empire wears to conceal the fact that there is no America … that there is only the global capitalist empire.
The whole idea of “World War III,” of powerful nation-states conquering other powerful nation-states, is pure nostalgia. “America” does not want to conquer Iran. The empire wants to restructure Iran, and then absorb Iran into the empire. It doesn’t give a rat’s ass about democracy, or whether Iranian women are allowed to wear mini-skirts, or any other “human rights.” If it did, it would be restructuring Saudi Arabia and applying “maximum pressure” to Israel.
Likewise, the notion that “America” has been making a series of unfortunate “strategic mistakes” in the Middle East is a convenient illusion. Granted, its foreign policy makes no sense from the perspective of a nation-state, but it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the empire. While “America” appears to be mindlessly thrashing around like a bull in a china shop, the empire knows exactly what it’s doing, what it has been doing since the end of the Cold War, opening up formerly inaccessible markets, eliminating internal resistance, aggressively restructuring any and all territories that are not playing ball with global capitalism.
I know it’s gratifying to wave the flag, or burn it, depending on your political persuasion, whenever things flare up militarily, but at some point we (i.e., we Americans, Brits, Western Europeans, et al.) are going to need to face the fact that we are living in a global empire, which is actively pursuing its global interests, and not in sovereign nation-states pursuing the interests of nation-states. (The fact that the nation-state is defunct is why we’ve been experiencing a resurgence of “nationalism.” It isn’t a return to the 1930s. It is the death throes of the nation-state, nationalism, and national sovereignty … the supernova of a dying star.)
World War III was an ideological battle, between two aspiring hegemonic systems. It is over. It’s a global capitalist world. As Mr. Jensen put it in the movie Network:
“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars.
Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today.”
That system of systems, that multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars, has us all by the short hairs, folks. All of us. And it won’t be satisfied until the world is transformed into one big, valueless, neo-feudal, privatized market… so maybe we should forget about World War III, and start focusing on World War IV.
You know the war I’m talking about, don’t you? It’s the global capitalist empire versus the “terrorists.”
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volume I of his Consent Factory Essays is published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 23:45 - 'Lonely' Japanese Billionaire Seeks Space Ho For SpaceX Voyage Around Moon
‘Lonely’ Japanese Billionaire Seeks Space Ho For SpaceX Voyage Around Moon
An attention-seeking Japanese billionaire has put out a casting call for single females to join him on a voyage around the moon on a SpaceX rocket in 2023.
44-year-old Yusaku Maezawa, who sold his online fashion retailer Zozo Inc. to SoftBank, is looking for single females over the age of 20 to join him on the adventure, which will be streamed as part of a documentary on AbemaTV.
“As feelings of loneliness and emptiness slowly begin to surge upon me, there’s one thing that I think about: continuing to love one woman,” wrote Maezawa, adding “I want to find a ‘life partner’. With that future partner of mine, I want to shout our love and world peace from outer space.”
Translation: Prepare to get boned by a billionaire in zero-gravity.
What’s more, Maezawa has recently split up from his 27-year-old actress girlfriend Ayame Goriki, and says he plans to bring artists on the flight to inspire works based on the journey – which he has dubbed Dear Moon.
The documentary, titled “Full Moon Lovers”, will stream on AbemaTV, which is backed by online ad agency CyberAgent and broadcaster TV Asahi and targets a younger audience that is turning away from traditional TV.
Applicants must “be interested in going into space and able to participate in the preparation for it” and “be someone who wishes for world peace”, the website states. –Reuters
Applications for space ho’s will close on January 17, and Maezawa will select the lucky winner by the end of March.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 23:25 - Assange May Walk Free Thanks To CIA Bumbling: Former NYT General Counsel
Assange May Walk Free Thanks To CIA Bumbling: Former NYT General Counsel
Authored by James Goodale, op-ed via TheHill.com,
A few days before Christmas, Julian Assange testified to a Spanish court that a Spanish security company, UC Global S.L., acting in coordination with the CIA, illegally recorded all his actions and conversations, including with his lawyers, and streamed them back in real time to the CIA.
He will, at the end of February, make a similar complaint to a British extradition court about the CIA’s alleged misbehavior.
Will such misbehavior, if proven, set Assange free?
The Daniel Ellsberg case may be instructive. You may recall that after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the “Pentagon Papers” case, Ellsberg was indicted under the Espionage Act for leaking Pentagon documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
After the trial commenced in San Francisco, it was brought to the judge’s attention that the “White House plumbers” broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. Based on that information and other complaints of government misbehavior, including the FBI’s interception of Ellsberg’s telephone conversations with a government official, Judge William Matthew Byrne decided that the case should be dismissed with prejudice because the government acted outrageously.
For similar reasons, the case against Assange should be dismissed, if it reaches the U.S. courts.
The “plumbers” were a covert group formed by the Nixon White House to stop leaks of information from the government, such as the Pentagon Papers. They are notorious for their burglary at the Watergate complex, which led to former President Nixon’s downfall. Approximately nine months before the Watergate break-in, the plumbers, led by former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, burglarized a psychiatrist’s office to find information that could discredit Ellsberg.
The CIA also was involved with the break-in. It prepared a psychiatric profile of Ellsberg as well as an ID kit for the plumbers, including drivers’ licenses, Social Security cards, and disguises consisting of red wigs, glasses and speech alteration devices.
Additionally, the CIA allowed Hunt and his sidekick, G. Gordon Liddy, to use two CIA safe houses in the D.C. area for meetings and storage purposes. Clearly, the CIA knew the plumbers were up to no good. It is unclear whether the CIA knew Ellsberg was the target, but it would not have taken much to figure it out.
The Spanish newspaper El Pais broke the story that UC Global invaded Assange’s privacy at the Ecuadorian embassy and shared its surveillance with the CIA. It demonstrated step-by-step, document-by-document, UC Global’s actions and its contacts with the CIA. UC Global reportedly installed cameras throughout Assange’s space in the embassy — including his bathroom — and captured Assange’s every word and apparently livestreamed it, giving the CIA a free TV show of Assange’s daily life.
After reading El Pais’s series, you would have to be a dunce not to believe the CIA didn’t monitor Assange’s every move at the Ecuadorian embassy, including trips to the bathroom.
Ecuador granted Assange asylum in their embassy for seven years, after he jumped bail in London to avoid extradition to Sweden for allegedly raping two Swedish women. (Those charges are now dismissed.) If you can believe it, Ecuador had hired UC Global to protect the Ecuadorian embassy and Assange. Not surprisingly, the CIA later made UC Global its spy to surveil Assange.
When there was a change of administration in Ecuador, Assange’s asylum was withdrawn, and he was immediately arrested by British police at the request of U.S. officials. The United States subsequently indicted him for violating the Espionage Act, for publishing the very same information published roughly contemporaneously by The New York Times, The Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde and Der Spiegel. (Assange already was subject to a sealed indictment in the United States for computer hacking.)
The behavior of UC Global and the CIA seems indistinguishable from the government’s behavior in the Ellsberg case, which a federal judge found to have “offended a sense of justice” and “incurably infected the prosecution” of the case. Accordingly, he concluded that the only remedy to ensure due process and the fair administration of justice was to dismiss Ellsberg’s case “with prejudice,” meaning that Ellsberg could not be retried.
Can anything be more offensive to a “sense of justice” than an unlimited surveillance, particularly of lawyer-client conversations, livestreamed to the opposing party in a criminal case? The alleged streaming unmasked the strategy of Assange’s lawyers, giving the government an advantage that is impossible to remove. Short of dismissing Assange’s indictment with prejudice, the government will always have an advantage that can never be matched by the defense.
The usual remedy for warrantless surveillance is to exclude any illegally obtained information from the trial, but that remedy is inapplicable here. The government’s advantage in surveilling Assange is not the acquisition of tangible evidence but, rather, intangible insights into Assange’s legal strategy. There is no way, therefore, to give Assange a fair trial, since his opponents will know every move he will make.
When Assange begins his extradition hearing, this will be part of his argument — that the CIA’s misbehavior violates his human rights by depriving him of his right to a fair trial.
The CIA will no doubt attempt to trump this argument by defending the surveillance on grounds of national security. This may be easier said than done, however: It is one thing to say the CIA can engage in surveillance abroad for its own intelligence-gathering purposes, and another to say it can listen to the private lawyer-client communications of a person against whom the U.S. government has an open criminal investigation.
More to the point, it does not seem immediately clear why eavesdropping on conversations of legal strategy protects U.S. national security. In my experience in national security cases (I led The New York Times lawyers in the “Pentagon Papers” case), every time the government is backed into a corner in such cases, it will simply serve up a defense of “national security” because it is difficult to defend against such an assertion and the government, consequently, has the ability to trump every competing argument.
Violation of Assange’s fair-trial rights is only one of many arguments he can make to defeat extradition. For example, he can argue that his health is so poor that he cannot survive extradition. His father has said Assange will die in prison, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur overseeing his case, Nils Melzer, believes Assange’s mental acuity has been damaged irreparably through “psychological torture.”
Most importantly, Assange can assert that the action of the U.S. government is for its own political benefit. It is standard law that extradition be refused when a country seeks it in order to prosecute a political offense. In this case, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the U.S. government would seek to shut down Assange for using “free speech values against us” and characterized Assange’s organization, WikiLeaks, as “a non-state hostile intelligence service.”
That statement does not sound like the government wishes to convict Assange for violating U.S. national security laws as much as to get rid of Assange himself for disclosing embarrassing information that is detrimental to American diplomatic and political interests. Whether the actions the U.S. government takes against Assange constitute a “political” offense will be hotly contested.
Former State Department and National Security Council legal adviser John Bellinger recently predicted on NPR a “battle royal because Assange and his lawyers will argue very forcefully that … the Trump administration is coming after him for political reasons.”
No doubt there also will be a “battle royal” regarding whether the CIA can, with impunity, surveil Assange’s actions and conversations — including those with his lawyers — and then livestream those to its offices without being heavily penalized for its behavior. It would seem the only appropriate remedy for such outrageous conduct would be to set Assange free.
* * *
James C. Goodale was the vice chairman and general counsel of The New York Times and is the author of “Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and other battles.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 23:05 - Army Selects QinetiQ & Textron To Build Robot Tank With Chain Gun
Army Selects QinetiQ & Textron To Build Robot Tank With Chain Gun
Earlier this month, as threats of World War 3 surged between the U.S. and Iran, President Trump boasted about his $2 trillion military spending spree. He said, “If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand-new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation!”
Threats of war have receded this week but are still elevated. There’s a new report from Defense Blog that details how the U.S. Army is continuing rapid modernization efforts to prepare for the next conflict.
The U.S. Army CCDC Ground Vehicle Systems Center and the U.S. Army Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross-Functional Team awarded QinetiQ North America and Textron last Friday with a contract to build four light (RCV Light) and four medium (RCV Medium) sized robotic tanks.
“The progress that our engineers, scientists, project managers, and leaders around Team Warren and the Army Modernization Enterprise have made in moving the RCV closer to reality is truly a heartening success story for Army modernization,” said Jeffrey Langhout, Director, Ground Vehicle Systems Center.
“That we can get this far already is a testament to the dedication and passion of the Army to giving our Soldiers the best capabilities possible. This is a great day for our Army, as we make another important step in learning how we can employ robotic vehicles into our future formations,” Langhout said.
The light and medium-sized RCVs will be part of the Army’s Robotic Campaign of Learning that will test the robots with ground troops. Testing is expected to conclude by the end of 2021 and could enter service by 2023.
“Robots have the potential to revolutionize the way we conduct ground combat operations,” said Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, Director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross-Functional Team.
“Whether that’s giving increased firepower to a dismounted patrol, breaching an enemy fighting position, or providing CBRNE reconnaissance, we envision these vehicles providing commanders more time and space for decisions and reducing risk to Soldiers,” Coffman said.
The RCVs are the next generation of combat vehicles that will be offered in three variants: the light version will be transportable by rotary wing, and the two medium variants will be transported in C-130 or C-17 aircraft.
Defense Blog notes that RCVs will have artificial intelligence with 25 mm chain gun swiveling on top with sensors that will be used to track and kill enemy forces. The robot will be able to support fire teams and or keep pace with armored convoys.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 22:45 - Courting Disaster? The Democrats Are Demanding Witnesses With One Notable Exception
Courting Disaster? The Democrats Are Demanding Witnesses With One Notable Exception
Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,
The Democratic leaders may soon learn the wisdom of Oscar Wilde’s warning that “when the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far delayed the submission of the impeachment of President Trump to the Senate to force a trial with witnesses. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has declared any trial of Trump without witnesses to be nothing less than the “most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.” Leaders of both parties know that impeachment often boils down to one unpredictable element: witnesses.
For those who have the votes, witnesses are an unnecessary risk. For those who don’t, they are an absolute necessity.
On Friday, Schumer insisted that “there is only one precedent that matters here: that never, never in the history of our country, has there been an impeachment trial of the president where the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses.”
Put another way, Schumer does not have the votes and thus needs the witnesses. Schumer now wants to hear from the witnesses who never testified before the House, which rushed through an impeachment without seeking to compel testimony from key officials. One of those, former national security adviser John Bolton, said Monday he would testify before the Senate if subpoenaed.
In the Clinton impeachment trial 21 years ago, Schumer and the Democrats opposed hearing from witnesses. In that impeachment chapter, the Democrats had the votes. Lacking the votes this time, the unpredictability of witnesses now appeals to Schumer and his party. But only up to a point. Schumer has opposed the suggested Republican witnesses as a mere “distraction.”
One witness in particular could prove not just a distraction but a disaster: Hunter Biden.
In a conventional trial, Biden would be a relevant defense witness. Biden’s testimony would have bearing on a key question in an abuse-of-power trial. Trump insists that he raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s relationship with a Ukrainian energy firm to the Ukrainian president as part of an overall concern he had about ongoing corruption in that country. If that contract with the son of a former vice president could be shown to be a corrupt scheme to advance the interests of a foreign company or country, it might be Trump’s best defense.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, courts will often review possible testimony under the standard of whether “it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Congress enacted a statute reaffirming the right of the “defense to make any proof that he can produce by lawful witnesses” in cases of treason and capitol cases. This right to present a defense has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court including in the 1967 opinion in Washington v. Texas, where the Court ruled that “the right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present the defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts . . . Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.”
Trump’s position is that he did not arbitrarily ask a country to investigate a possible political rival. Had Trump called for an investigation into Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) husband, for example, without a scintilla of proof of corruption, it would be entirely indefensible. However, the Biden contract was so openly corrupt it would have made Jack Abramoff blush. Even in the United States, lobbyists and companies will often give family members undeserved lucrative jobs and contracts to curry favor with powerful politicians. Overseas, it is standard operating procedure. Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian parliament, said Biden was made a director “to protect (the company)” from investigation by U.S. and Ukrainian officials. Even Hunter Biden admitted that the position was given to him because of his father. Hunter Biden was paid at least $50,000 a month and possibly more.
Biden stepped down from the Burisma board only when his father announced his candidacy in April 2019. Ukraine assured Trump that it was cracking down on corruption when, just a few months earlier, Biden had been receiving monthly retainers from Burisma.
If the Biden contract was an ongoing corrupt effort to secure influence and money from the United States, Trump’s reference to it in a discussion of corruption has a possible public purpose. While one can certainly conclude that self-dealing by the president is a plausible explanation, there is no question that the testimony of Biden would be relevant.
Schumer knows that neither Biden nor his contract will show well under the glare of a public impeachment trial. In addition to his glaring lack of relevant experience, the younger Biden has a checkered history – from drug addiction to being thrown out of the Naval Reserve – that would have led most companies to avoid him. The trial might also force the public to consider Joe Biden’s failure to ask about his son’s dubious foreign dealings. Joe Biden himself seems delusional in claiming, “No one has said my son did anything wrong.”
For the Democrats, witnesses are a dangerous game. The worse that Hunter Biden looks, the better Trump looks in raising the contract. That is the problem with asking for witnesses in a Senate trial. They can take you to places you might prefer not to go.
* * *
Jonathan Turley is the chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial before the Senate in defense of Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 22:25 - Global Automakers Remain Cautious, Pessimistic As China Forecasts 2% Sales Drop For 2020
Global Automakers Remain Cautious, Pessimistic As China Forecasts 2% Sales Drop For 2020
The mood in the Chinese auto market is one of pessimism.
And the global auto recession, being led by the world’s largest market in China, doesn’t look as though it’ll be turning around anytime soon. That’s because China is forecasting a 2% sales decline for 2020, as we first noted just hours ago when we pointed out the country’s nasty 7.5% sales decline for December.
Sales dropped 8.2% in 2019 due to a slowing economy, but also U.S. import tariffs and new emissions standards, according to Reuters.
The CAAM’s pessimistic outlook for 2020 is starting the entire global industry off on a cautious note. A decline in 2020 would mark the third year that sales have fallen, as they also declined 2.8% in 2018. This followed continual growth that had begun all the way back in the 1990s.
Industry analysts are banking on a sales recovery in small towns and easing trade war tensions to act as tailwinds in China this year. Shi Jianhua, a senior official at CAAM, said: “We have moved away from the high-speed development stage. We have to accept the reality of low-speed development. We had high-speed growth for a consecutive 28 years, which was really not bad, so I hope everyone can calmly look at the market.”
NEV sales were down 27.4% in December, which helped fuel an overall annual decline to 1.24 million units in 2019.
To make matters worse, Beijing slashed subsidies on EVs and NEVs this year – as we noted in the beginning of December – causing a huge dent in sales of plug-in vehicles. NEV sales also plunged 42% in November.
CAAM’s assistant secretary general, Xu Haidong said it was “not possible” for the country to sell the 2 million NEVs it targeted for 2020 back in 2017.
Since cutting production and shuttering factories last year, many auto manufacturers are cautious heading into 2020. Geely and Ford, for instance, have both said they expect fiercer competition to weed out weaker companies.
Ford said its China auto sales were down more than 25% for 2019, marking a third year of declines. Along with GM, who reported a 15% drop in 2019 China sales, it remained cautious on 2020.
Matt Tsien, president of GM China said: “We expect the market downturn to continue in 2020, and anticipate ongoing headwinds in our China business.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 22:05 - As Trump Threatens Tehran Over Censorship, Facebook's Thought-Police Censor Pro-Iran Posts
As Trump Threatens Tehran Over Censorship, Facebook’s Thought-Police Censor Pro-Iran Posts
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
The hypocrisy is unbelievable. In order to comply with United States sanctions on Iran, Facebook’s thought police have taken to censorship on behalf of the government. At the same time, President Donald Trump warns Iran not to use censorship.
It’s become painfully obvious that the ruling class wants to get us into another war, where the young and poor are shipped off to die while the politicians and government defense contractors get rich. And the hypocrisy is becoming noticeable. Backed by the ruling class, Big Tech’s censorship is nothing new, however, this time, it’s an excuse to propagate a war:
These massive Big Tech corporations are Thought Police for the US government:
Facebook and Instagram are removing posts expressing support for Iran’s top general Soleimani
They say it’s to comply with US sanctions, but how do posts violate sanctions? https://t.co/BthPuxgOBC
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 11, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This is especially disgusting because Instagram is very popular in Iran, where Soleimani has 82% approval
So Big Tech overlords are basically saying Iranians do not get the right to free speech because of US gov sanctions
The US empire trumps free speechhttps://t.co/BthPuxgOBC
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 11, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The International Federation of Journalists condemned the censorship effort as “unprecedented in the history of social networks and in conflict with the very innate actuality of media.” In its letter to Instagram, AoIJ Tehran noted that numerous Iranian state media accounts had been removed and 15 journalists had been censored recently, which goes against and freedom of speech principles.
“These massive Big Tech corporations are Thought Police for the US government: Facebook and Instagram are removing posts expressing support for Iran’s top general Soleimani,” journalist Ben Norton tweeted. “They say it’s to comply with US sanctions, but how do posts violate sanctions? –RT
The answer is: they don’t. The problem is that the war sentiment and the idea that slaughtering people for our freedoms in other countries is gone. The elitists that need a war to profit off of it can’t convince the public to fight and die for them unless they control the narrative.
That’s why speech is being censored.
Big tech is just another arm of the U.S. government.
Any support for Soleimani will be taken down by Facebook and Instagram to comply with the USA sanctions but Trump can tweet that Iran should not close down the internet because the world is watching. He wouldn’t understand the irony of his tweet. Free speech, censorship anyone?
— Jennifer Brierley (@JenniferBrierl2) January 11, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Hypocritically, while Facebook was acting as “thought police” on behalf of the US government (the rulers who think they own everyone), Washington has been championing free speech and warning Tehran against restricting the Iranian people’s internet access. U.S. President Donald Trump personally addressed the anti-government protesters – in Farsi, mind you – reassuring them of his unwavering support, according to a report by RT.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 21:45 - Biden Campaign Woos Wall Street In Private Huddle With Bigwigs
Biden Campaign Woos Wall Street In Private Huddle With Bigwigs
Joe Biden’s campaign chairman Steve Ricchetti has been privately meeting with top donors from Wall Street over the last week in a bid to drum up support for the 77-year-old former Vice President’s run at the Democratic nomination, according to CNBC.
Ricchetti huddled with around 90 financiers on Wednesday at New York-based investment banking firm Evercore, in a pitch which reportedly swayed several big-money donors who apparently haven’t heard Biden try to string together more than a few sentences.
Attendees included Evercore founder Roger Altman, longtime investor Blair Effron, Blackstone Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Gray, Citigroup executive Ray McGuire, Centerbridge Partners co-founder Mark Gallogly, and former U.S. ambassador to France Jane Hartley, said the people, who declined to be named since the meeting was deemed private.
Ricchetti told the donors that he believes now is the time for them and their donor networks to get behind Biden as the first contests of the 2020 primary season are set to kick off in three weeks, according to people familiar with the matter. –CNBC
Biden, while still the Democratic frontrunner, is in an extremely tight race with Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – the former of whom has begun beating Biden in several polls. South Bend Mayor Bete Buttigieg is also a serious contender at this stage.
The meeting did not just include staunch supporters of Biden, such as Effron, who, along with businessman Marc Lasry, has decided to back Biden after first backing Sen. Kamala Harris. The group was described by one attendee as donors who were either “Biden-warm or Biden-not-so-warm.” McGuire, for instance, was another Harris backer and a member of her national finance committee. Gallogly, as CNBC first reported, had supported former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke but has since decided to support Biden. Harris and O’Rourke dropped out of the race last year.
After the meeting, many of the donors appeared ready to join Biden’s cause, the people said. –CNBC
Meanwhile, Biden’s campaign will hold a series of fundraising events which could bring in millions of much-needed dollars at this critical juncture in his bid for the White House.
Expect Warren and Sanders – who have raised money primarily through small contributions – to knock Biden for pandering to Wall Street. Buttigieg, meanwhile, is happy to take money from across the board.
Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg raised a combined $100 million in the fourth quarter. Trump and the RNC, meanwhile, have nearly $200 million on hand.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 21:25 - Monetary Massacre Theory
Monetary Massacre Theory
Authored by Tim Price via The Cobden Centre,
“A deeply disturbing account of the destructive potential of belief.”
– Ammar Kalia, reviewing BBC Four’s Storyville: Jonestown – Terror in the Jungle.
When it’s not trying to overturn legitimate plebiscites or shoving woke propaganda down the throats of its reluctant viewers, the BBC is still capable of showing half-decent documentaries. This correspondent recently caught the tail end of one such piece, Storyville: Jonestown – Terror in the Jungle. Being nine at the time of the original atrocity, we don’t remember any coverage of the story being aired, but 1978 was a different age, and wary parents might well have suppressed the news in any case.
Here are the facts. In 1974, the cult leader Jim Jones established the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project (“Jonestown”) in northwestern Guyana. The organisation purported to practise what it termed “apostolic socialism”. What became known as Jonestown would represent, to its believers, a socialist paradise and a haven from media scrutiny.
Temple members were originally worked six days a week, between 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., but after Jones’ health began to deteriorate, the schedule was relaxed to eight hours a day for five days a week – a regime adopted from North Korea. The settlers’ Hollywood movies were replaced by Soviet propaganda and documentaries about American social problems. Jones himself would often read to his parishioners news items from Radio Moscow and Radio Havana. Temple staff would “interpret” other material and help the congregation to “appreciate” Marxist-Leninist messages. Parishioners who misbehaved would be consigned to a 6 x 4 x 3 foot plywood box. Errant children would be consigned to the bottom of a well, sometimes upside down.
In 1977, former Temple members Tim and Grace Stoen began a campaign seeking custody of their five-year-old son, John. Eventually, Congressman Leo Ryan offered to assist them. By 1978, Jones was apparently taking significant quantities of Valium, Quaaludes, stimulants and other drugs. He was probably also suffering from chronic insomnia.
On November 14, 1978, Congressman Ryan arrived at Jonestown with a delegation that included representatives from the US embassy to Guyana, a number of journalists including NBC reporter Don Harris, and representatives from the ‘Concerned Relatives’ pressure group, including Tim and Grace Stoen.
After a few days at the site, the Ryan delegation left for the Port Kaituma airstrip with a small number of defectors from the Temple. They were intercepted by Temple members. A number of NBC employees were shot dead. Congressman Ryan was shot dead. A damaged Twin Otter plane and the survivors from the delegation were left behind on the airstrip.
Aides at the compound meanwhile prepared a large barrel of grape-flavoured Flavor Aid, a cheap knock-off of Kool-Aid, tainted with Valium, cyanide, chloral hydrate and Phenergan. Jones then urged Temple members to commit “revolutionary suicide”. Parents were encouraged to dose their children, then take the poison themselves. Reluctant parishioners were dispatched by armed guards. A total of 918 people, including many children, died, “voluntarily” or otherwise. Jim Jones was among them; he shot himself in the head.
Attending the recent MoneyWeek annual investor conference, this correspondent was struck by the apparent consensus amongst the event’s panellists that the world’s central banks were highly likely in 2020 to start implementing what is known as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). MMT holds that any government that issues its own money can pay for goods, services and financial assets without a need to raise taxes or issue debt. It also holds that governments cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in their own currency.
It seems increasingly plausible that MMT will be the next iteration of macroeconomic planning from our monetary authorities, the central banks. We would argue that their previous policies of QE (Quantitative Easing) and especially ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) have led their respective economies into something of a dead end. Perhaps “Jonestowns” would be an appropriate analogy. With the cost of capital effectively at zero, profitless ‘concept stocks’ can secure almost unlimited funding, driving down profit margins for competitors that actually have credible and sustainable business models. Eventually the entire economy and financial system becomes zombified.
As Adam Smith could easily have said, there’s a great deal of ruin in a fiat money system. The rot has been setting in for years. Here, for example, is what the John Wilkes Club wrote about the system seven years ago:
..this shadowy financial engineering, eye-watering price volatility and the foisting of our debt on unborn generations seem to share some nebulous characteristic which is as instantly recognisable as it is hard to define – a certain grubbiness, the quality of something unpleasant that we have become resigned to living with.
The sense that the whole economy is a hostile and dishonest place, that there is no pleasure or virtue to be found in it, is so much a hallmark of the modern world that it might almost be its distinguishing feature. If there is a single culprit, the smoking gun is surely grasped in the pallid talons of the monetary system, now so far from being an organic social convention, evolved to meet real human needs, that we should hardly be surprised that we no longer expect it to promote basic social decency.
During the twentieth century, the nature of money itself was remorselessly inched away from being a real monetary commodity – the honest and logical medium of exchange which it had been since the very dawn of homo œconomicus – to being an arbitrary and elastic pile of government promissory notes backed by nothing at all. This was not brought about by our changing preferences as money users, but by a series of planned changes conceived on our behalf by progressive folk with reassuring credentials.
These were intelligent, often brilliant people whose misguided faith in the ability of human genius to transcend the limitations of inherited behaviours made them tragically susceptible to the insane schemes which so characterised the last century. At its least harmful, this ambition brought us those planned urban communities which seem to be based on Lord of the Flies; at its most, it brought us millions of corpses. Somewhere in between these two on the list of twentieth century mistakes lies the global non-system of fiat money which developed between 1913 and 1971.
We do not often quote Lord Keynes at the JWC, but here he is in 1923: “[t]he individualistic capitalism of today…presumes a stable measuring rod of value and can not be efficient – perhaps can not survive – without one.” It was the economists of his generation, however, who decided that they alone could calculate the correct monetary balance to ensure non-inflationary growth and implement it though the central bank, just as they alone could determine the just and efficient allocation of scarce resources and implement it through licensing, regulations and subsidies. The gold standard was out, and what Detlev Schlichter has wittily called the ‘PhD Standard’ was in.
They seem to have been glacially unconcerned that modern economic life – indeed, any social organisation more sophisticated than a primitive barter society – needs a sound accounting unit in order for long-term obligations or depreciation schedules to have any meaning at all, let alone to be accurately calculable. An exponentially expanding stock of paper or electronic units does not contain the information needed for any large or lasting enterprise to match off values, any more than jelly can be nailed to the wall.
Before, when money was a gold derivative, a pound note or dollar bill had been a kind of short position against a physical asset. Gradually, this easy calculation was replaced by a labyrinth of paper claims against paper whose expansion was not even readily susceptible to measurement, because the definitions of money and credit were now so close as to be virtually indistinguishable. How can the value of a money-market fund be anything but arbitrary when it becomes nothing more than an aggregation of short-term credit obligations?
Nevertheless, governments leapt at the new economic orthodoxy like pirates on an unexpected chest of doubloons. Here at last was the story they needed in order to float as much debt as they wanted: risk-averse savers holding money-balances were now effectively lending money to their governments rather than hoarding precious metals. The fiscal discipline which the successful system of commodity money had imposed on greedy and ambitious politicians was broken. Moreover, their weapons have become more sophisticated over time: any attempt to bet against government policy can now be taken down by unleashing irresistible firepower through the derivatives markets.
The automatic stabilising effects of inelastic commodity money are well known and need not be rehearsed here – suffice it to say that the inability to create more money makes the kind of trade and fiscal imbalances of 2013 self-correcting. Our main point here is that honesty and honour in contractual relationships is dependent on trust and therefore on certainty. The monetary system is a moral as well as an accounting frame of reference.
The three examples with which we began this post are merely topical instances of a much broader decline of social virtues in economic behaviour: manufacturers seeking profits in financial engineering instead of product sales, stock markets which seem to have nothing to do with the boring process of channelling savings into productive investments, and whole societies transferring to themselves the wealth of people who are unable to consent.
Our entire culture is pervaded by a moral turpitude in financial matters. Whereas in a hard money system the amount of savings sets an upper limit to the amount of borrowing, today’s imbalance between savers and would-be borrowers can be simply circumvented by governments and banks siphoning off purchasing power from others by inflating the currency. Never mind credit expansion and the business cycle: it is simply unethical to use human patrimony, built over years or generations of hard work, without the freely negotiated agreement of those who have built it.
Another imbalance – our multi-decadal trade deficits – shows how addicted first world countries have become to having prosperous lifestyles despite negative savings rates: a narcissistic, self-indulgent culture of entitlement by which the richest people in the world live beyond their means by forever extending the games they play with their elastic currencies, paying for foreign work with newly-created irredeemable paper.
Harry Schultz was surely right that the deterioration in economic attitudes in our society – indebtedness, lack of respect of the system and lazy moral relativism – is related to the meaninglessness of our medium of exchange. In contrast, a commodity money system limits debt, the scope for financial dishonesty and the ability to use currency and credit expansion to establish political control over others. Those limitations foster sound and ethical economic behaviour.
Our Georgian and Victorian ancestors correctly held commerce to be amongst the highest of the social virtues.. Not understanding that the monetary system in the twenty-first century is qualitatively different as well as quantitatively debased, we see the corruption and involuntary transfers all around us and feel grateful that the economic bureaucracy has the power to step in. Truly, it is the cure that is making us sick.
We give the last word on the intellectual credibility of MMT this week to Mr. George Hatjoullis who wrote the following to the editor of the Financial Times in November 2014:
Sir,
Adair Turner suggests some version of monetary financing is the only way to break Japan’s deflation and deal with the debt overhang (‘Print money to fund the deficit – that is the fastest way to raise rates’, Comment, November 11). This was precisely how Korekiyo Takahashi, Japanese finance minister from 1931 to 1936, broke the deflation of the 1930s. The policy was discredited because of the hyperinflation that followed.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 21:05 - NBA Stymies Spencer Dinwiddie's Plan To Sell A Crypto-Bond Backed By His $34M Contract
NBA Stymies Spencer Dinwiddie’s Plan To Sell A Crypto-Bond Backed By His $34M Contract
An NBA player who is trying to create a new option for athletes receive a large chunk of their enormous contracts up front via securitization is being stymied by the NBA, which has said it’s still reviewing a revised plan from Brooklyn Nets’ Spencer Dinwiddie to sell a new crypto-bond on a proprietary platform he developed with a crypto-focused startup.
In many ways, the “Spencer Dinwiddie Bond” is a modern twist on a bond backed by musician David Bowie’s catalogue revenues.
That bond holds a special place in fixed-income market history, mostly as a novelty, but also increasingly as a way for musicians with valuable catalogues to try and generate money for investments or tax payments.
“Spencer Dinwiddie’s advisers provided us with new information regarding a modified version of their digital token idea, which we are reviewing to determine whether the updated idea is permissible under league rules,” the NBA said in a statement.
Yesterday, Dinwiddie retweeted a Forbes reporter who claimed that the “long awaited release of his SD8 securities-backed bond” would happen on Monday.
We’re just one day from @SDinwiddie_25‘s long-awaited release of his SD8 securities-backed bond. For @ForbesSports, the #Nets star told me why he’s doing it, how the #NBA threatened to terminate his contract & how his season has progressed https://t.co/OeNgYieYxv #cryptocurrency
— Shlomo Sprung (@SprungOnSports) January 12, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Dinwiddie also tweeted that the bond would launch on Monday, and that he’d be taking 8 fans to All Star Weekend with him.
The Spencer Dinwiddie bond launches January 13th. I’ll also be taking 8 fans to ASW with me. #NBAVote pic.twitter.com/dhXKt0qPqh
— Spencer Dinwiddie (@SDinwiddie_25) January 10, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Right now, the plan is to only offer the tokens to accredited investors. But someday, Dinwiddie hopes to open sales to all.
I can’t wait to have a Reg A offering as well. The hoops we have to jump through now Make the process cumbersome. NDAs, KYC/AML, Accredited investors, cross reference with other approved lists etc etc. but soon we will have it for ALL! I promise https://t.co/l4E1U36LdD
— Spencer Dinwiddie (@SDinwiddie_25) January 12, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Dinwiddie partnered with digital securities company Securitize, whose CEO, Carlos Domingo, tweeted that he was “extremely proud” to be Dinwiddie’s strategic partner.
At @securitize we are extremely excited and proud to be the digital transfer agent and technology partner for @SDinwiddie_25 and @DreamFanShares world’s first Professional Athlete Investment Security Token. Innovation takes courage, kudos. https://t.co/F7STPJfWaw
— Carlos Domingo (@carlosdomingo) January 10, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Dinwiddie announced his plans to launch a new investing platform called DREAM Fan Shares back in September. According to the press release, the platform was designed to be a “portal for supporters and fans who want to invest in the potential success of athletes and stars.”
He developed his SD8 tokens under his company SD8 LLC, and he reportedly plans to sell 90 of the tokens on his new platform.
Spencer Dinwiddie
The plan is for Dinwiddie to sell the SD8 bond tokens on DREAM. To entice potential buyers, Dinwiddie is offering access to revenues from his $34 million contract, in exchange for money up front, allowing him to put that money to work now.
However, the NBA initially expressed notable concerns over Dinwiddie’s plans, which included a “player option,” leading to investor dividends based on specific circumstances, Sprung said in a Jan. 10 article. The NBA warned Dinwiddie that his career might be at risk if he followed through with his plan without the league’s blessing.
The SEC has devised strict rules for celebrities dealing in cryptocurrency after the ICO frenzy of 2017 and 2018 led to thousands of gullible investors being swindled out of their money, followed by a bevy of lawsuits and even some criminal penalties. But Dinwiddie appears to be serious about his plans to revolutionize how athletes can financialize their contracts.
Dinwiddie’s plan has already been delayed once, and it’s still unclear whether the NBA will go along with it. But if they do, several other athletes have already expressed interest in following in his footsteps.
Of course, if a bunch of athletes get access to the bulk of their contracts up front, just imagine what such an infusion of wealth might do to asset prices.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 20:45 - December's Slower Wage Growth Reflects Drop In Incentive Income
December’s Slower Wage Growth Reflects Drop In Incentive Income
Submitted by Joe Carson, fomer Chief Economist & Director of Global Economic Research for Alliance Bernstein
The abrupt drop in average hourly earnings in December to a 3% gain, 50 basis points below the run-rate of the past year, is as much of a surprise as it is a puzzle. How can the wage data show a one-month plunge in earnings growth when the other parts of the labor report showed steady gains in new hiring (+145,000 in December) and no change in the unemployment rate (3.5%)? The answer could be a large drop in incentive or commission income due to soft holiday sales at a number of business establishments in retail and wholesale trade.
Earnings in the payroll employment report not only include regular wage and pay increases but also monthly bonuses and commission income tied to workers sales performance. It’s the latter component of earnings that might explain the sharp drop-off in the rate of earnings growth.
December’s data on wages show an exceptionally large deceleration in the retail and wholesale trade sectors. Wages in the two trade sectors combined posted an annual gain of 2.9%, off sharply from the 4.5% gain recorded one year earlier.
Payrolls of retail and wholesale trade account for nearly 20% of total payroll employment so the 160 basis points drop – from 4.5% to 2.9% in wage growth – would account for more than the 50 basis points deceleration – from 3.5% to 3.0% -in average hourly earnings.
The sharp slowdown in earnings growth in retail and wholesale trade occurred even though these businesses added 50,000 new workers in December. The addition of new workers suggests that these companies were not looking to cut labor costs in December so that raises the possibility that the reduction is earnings growth came from other parts of labor compensation.
Combined, November retail and wholesale sales were up a mere 2% from year ago levels, roughly half of the 2018 performance. Yet, sales at many of the high-profile retail establishments, such as general merchandise and clothing stores posted a decline of 1% -well off the 4% gain of one year earlier.
With reduced growth in sales, and declines in some areas, odds are relatively high that incentive or commission-base income dropped sharply in 2019 versus what was paid in 2018. None of this is meant to downplay the importance of commission income, only to point out its “lumpiness” and its sensitivity to sales performances.
Investors should be also mindful that sales are a good proxy for revenue growth -and the soft sales reports should be seen as a harbinger of weak Q4 profits in a number of businesses as well.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 20:25 - Here Comes Wikigate 2: NYT Claims Russian Hackers Successfully "Breached" Burisma
Here Comes Wikigate 2: NYT Claims Russian Hackers Successfully “Breached” Burisma
Color us skeptical, alt-right, conspiracy-wonk, Putin-puppets; but the transparency and timing of tonight’s “bombshell” report from The New York Times of an ‘alleged’ hacking by ‘allegedly’ Russian hackers of Burisma – the Ukrainian energy firm that VP Biden’s crack-smoking, energy-ignorant son was paid $50,000 per month as a board member – reeks so strongly of foundational narrative-building for something “embarrassing” that is coming, it is stunning just how dumb the deep state must think the American public really is. Actually, maybe not all that stunning.
According to Area 1, the Silicon Valley security firm that detected the hacking, Russian hackers from a military intelligence unit known formerly as the G.R.U., and to private researchers by the alias “Fancy Bear,” used so-called phishing emails that appear designed to steal usernames and passwords, to gain access to Burisma’s network.
Full Area 1 Report here:
Oren Falkowitz, a co-founder of Area 1, and previously a hacker at the National Security Agency, proclaimed in the report that “the attacks were successful,” even though it is unknown what the alleged hackers were attempting to discover.
“The timing of the Russian campaign mirrors the G.R.U. hacks we saw in 2016 against the D.N.C. and John Podesta,” the Clinton campaign chairman, Mr. Falkowitz said.
“Once again, they are stealing email credentials, in what we can only assume is a repeat of Russian interference in the last election.”
As The Mercury News reported, over the summer, Area 1 persuaded the Federal Election Commission to allow it to provide low-cost services to political campaigns, which would typically be a violation of rules designed to prevent businesses from currying political favor.
Additionally, and coming as no surprise to many, Mr. Falkowitz is a significant donor to Democrats; and even more intriguing, the company’s CSO – Blacke Darche – also worked at the NSA and most notably, Crowdstrike.
While NYT admits it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or precisely what they were searching for, that did not stop them speculating, based on more anonymous sources.
The Times, citing an American security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence, claiming – without any proof – that the Russian attacks on Burisma appear to be running parallel to an effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information in the analog world that could embarrass the Bidens. The spies, the official said, are trying to penetrate Burisma and working sources in the Ukrainian government in search of emails, financial records and legal documents.
So-called “experts” reportedly claim the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his farcical impeachment.
All sounds very sinister!
The New York Times, thoughtfully asks Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, what his thoughts are on the entirely unfounded story. His response is unsurprising to say the least…
“Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan, international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can’t beat the vice president.”
“Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe Biden as a threat.”
“Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections.”
Oh we are sure Putin is terrified of Biden!?
And the icing on the cake from the New York Times reporters, to ensure the dumbfounded reader is completely clear on what just happened (without any shadow of a doubt)…
The Russian tactics are strikingly similar to what American intelligence agencies say was Russia’s hacking of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential campaign. In that case, once they had the emails, the Russians used trolls to spread and spin the material, and built an echo chamber to widen its effect.
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true?
So, what are the Democrats preparing for? Another round of embarrassing leaked emails – Wikigate 2.0? And this story is designed to plant the seed that anyone who releases any of the “hacked” emails – which may or may not expose crimes by the Bidens (or Pelosis) is a Russian agent and must be shunned, censored, and generally disavowed by any and all Western media.
Or, you could choose to believe that the Russians – who allegedly were so dumb last time as to make it obvious it was them doing the hacking – have done it again… following the same pattern, and getting caught in their “meddling”? Oh wait, they have answer for that ‘conspiracy theory’ – that Russian hackers are “lazy”…
“The Burisma hack is a cookie-cutter G.R.U. campaign,” Mr. Falkowitz said.
“Russian hackers, as sophisticated as they are, also tend to be lazy. They use what works. And in this, they were successful.”
Which is odd. Given how terrified every establishment type was at the thought of Iranians hacking America’s most sensitive infrastructure in the last week, one might think that well-trained Russian hackers would be a little more adept. But then again, anyone who chooses to not believe the NYT story hook, line, and sinker – is clearly a puppet of Putin.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 20:05 - David Stockman: What Triggers The Next Financial Collapse?
David Stockman: What Triggers The Next Financial Collapse?
Authored by David Stockman via InternationalMan.com,
International Man: You have sounded the alarm on a coming financial crisis of historic proportions. How do Trump’s trade policies figure into your view that a crisis is coming?
David Stockman: Trump’s trade policies only create more risk and rot down below.
They’re just kicking the can down the road. With this latest move by the Fed, they have cut the interest rates three times and short-term rates are back at 1.55%. They’re pumping their balance sheet back up—it’s up $300 billion just since September.
The Fed has reverted to all of the things that have created the underlying rot—and that means when finally things break loose, it’s going to be far worse than it would have otherwise been.
Given that they’re kicking the can down the road, they’re building the pressure in the system to really explosive levels.
The trade chaos that Trump’s creating is probably the catalyst that will bring down the whole house of cards.
At end of the day, it’s about the Red Ponzi. The world economy would be not nearly as good as it looks had the Chinese not been borrowing like there’s no tomorrow and building regardless of whether its efficient or profitable.
This has kept the global economy inching forward on a totally artificial basis. You could track it; some people call it the “China credit impulse.” Every time they get into trouble, they turn on the printing press. That causes commodity prices to rise and industrial activity and trade to pick up. It shows up in the GDP numbers, and then everybody gets all excited.
The fear of recession that we had a while back has now abated. We’re back to another global reflation meme, but none of this is sustainable.
And yet that’s what has happened about three times since 2011. Each time, we have to remember the rulers in Beijing are digging themselves deeper into the hole. They’ve got an economy now that they claim is worth $13 trillion of GDP, but it’s got $40 trillion of debt on it. That’s just bank debt! I’m not even talking about the other forms of debt, such as trade debt, bond debt, so on and so forth.
It’s like nothing we’ve ever seen before. People should be fearful that this tower of debt is visibly wavering, as China is getting clobbered by Trump’s trade war.
Recently, exports to the United States were down 23% from the prior year.
Nothing like this has happened in a decade or longer. China’s investment in fixed assets, which has kept their whole economy going, is slowly grinding to a halt. The leaders there are desperately trying to keep the whole Ponzi going. That’s the heart of the risk.
Yet Trump is going right at it because of his primitive view that everybody else cheats and we have to teach China a lesson.
The trade problem in the world is real, but it’s a consequence of bad money, not a consequence of bad trade policies, stupid people doing bad negotiations, or stupid presidents who didn’t know what they were doing.
It was the dumb central bankers who didn’t know what they were doing and that basically created a global financial system that won’t correct these huge imbalances in capital and trade flows. It’s leading to a point of unsustainability and eventual crisis.
Whether President Trump knows it or not, in the guise of pursuit of MAGA [Make America Great Again], he is shaking the Red Ponzi to the core, and I think it’s very fragile.
The whole global economy is really dependent on China piling even more debt onto the $40 trillion pile they already have. Trump’s trade war is basically an economic cruise missile barrage aimed right at that gargantuan pile of unsupportable debt.
Therefore, I think there are very troubling times ahead.
International Man: What developments do you expect in 2020 that could lead to a crisis?
David Stockman: They’re all interrelated. How many times does the stock market rally because there was some type of TV headline about a trade deal? In fact, there is one every other day.
It’s going to become damn clear that there’s no fundamental trade deal, just an unstable truce. It’s going to become apparent that there is an ongoing deep, destructive war, not just on trade, but on technology, the whole military-political spectrum that has been unleashed and exacerbated by Trump’s trade policies.
It has very negative implications for the future—economically and otherwise.
The so-called “phase one” deal doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
The $50 billion of farm exports, for example, is a complete pipe dream. But say China is going to buy $25 billion of our products by 2021. That’s where we started four years ago, and it’s way below the all-time peak of $28 billion back in 2013.
How’s that a deal?
All the other issues have been deferred.
China says they won’t manipulate their currency. But everybody in the world manipulates their fiat currency, and central banks are constantly doing that.
If this flimsy phase one deal actually gets signed, it’ll become evident to the market and the robo traders that this isn’t the end of a threat to future prosperity. It’s just a sign that this is going to be ongoing and will get bigger and more disruptive as time goes on.
They may get what they wish, which is a trade deal. That deal will only crystallize the fact that we’re in a world that’s coming apart at the seams, in terms of the global trading system and financial and capital flows.
International Man: What is your view on the future of the US dollar? Does that outlook change depending on the results of the 2020 election?
David Stockman: Trump is simply demanding that the Fed become more aggressive in the race to the bottom.
That’s dangerous, it’s destructive, it’s stupid.
Also, you’re competing with the likes of the ECB [European Central Bank], which now, has a new leader, Christine Lagarde, who is even crazier than was Draghi when it comes to money printing. And competing with Japan, which is basically drowning its economy with money printing.
The Bank of Japan’s balance sheet is 100% of GDP. It’s out of this world.
People don’t know, in historic times—and by that I mean anything before 1990—the balance sheets of central banks tended to be 2–4% of GDP. Now we’re in a totally different world.
If the US wants to compete with the BOJ [Bank of Japan] or the ECB or the people’s printing press of China, then go ahead, but you’ll never win. It’s a race to the bottom.
That is the real issue.
It’s not going to happen only to the US dollar; it’s what’s going to happen to the fiat currencies, generally. They’re all run by Keynesian central bankers. I think they’re all going to fall apart.
Fiat currencies are heading for a demise, because they’re based on principles and predicates that are, one, stupid, and, two, unsustainable over a long period of time.
We’re soon going to find that out.
International Man: What are your views on gold’s future in the international monetary system?
David Stockman: Gold is the enemy of the state.
Central banks are creatures of the state. They are agents, instruments of Leviathan.
Leviathan will fight—to the bitter end—any increase in gold’s role in the global economy or monetary system.
It will materialize only if there is a complete existential crisis and the whole central banking system breaks down and the world has to put itself back together.
Some people will recognize that one element of the reset and revamping needs to be the anchor that kept the monetary system stable for several centuries before 1971—which is gold.
That is a possibility, but how do you get from here to there?
The answer is a devastating crisis that is so powerful and destructive that the philosophy that drives everything today is completely discredited.
That’s pretty severe. It’s a valley of death that you don’t necessarily want to hazard, but it’s the only way to get from here to sound money, unfortunately.
International Man: The central banks of China, Russia, Turkey, and several European countries are buying massive amounts of gold. What do you think this means?
David Stockman: I think they’re hedging.
I think that intelligent people can see that this system of balance sheet expansion and interest rate repression—and $17 trillion in bonds trading with sub-zero yields a few months ago—isn’t sustainable.
Some central banks at least are trying to hedge their bets by reallocating their balance sheet to have a larger share of gold. As the crisis of what I call “Keynesian central banking” becomes more and more intensive and acute, more central banks will be buying gold.
Gold has a small trading value, or market cap, compared to something like a trillion dollars that turns over in the repo market every day. Or the five trillion dollars a day that turns over in the currency markets. Gold is a minor player, compared to that.
If central banks begin to really stock up on gold, what’s going to happen is people will try to front run them.
This is the whole secret of what’s been ongoing for the last 20 years in other markets. The reason bond yields have gone to rock bottom is the central banks have been buying the bonds. So, the smart traders are buying what the central banks are buying.
If the central banks are going to start buying gold, the same guys who have been buying the 10-year Treasuries or Bunds are going to start buying gold, and it’ll soar. The same way that bond prices have in last few years.
In other words, the world is awash with massive artificial liquidity created by the central banks. It’s in the hands of traders, who move in split-second intervals and attempt to leverage anything that looks like it’s going up. Especially if they can put it on leverage that costs nothing.
Maybe the next chapter is the whole system becomes unwound and the banks start buying more gold, and the front runners start buying more gold, and the price begins to multiply by breathtaking rates.
* * *
Unfortunately most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare… The coming economic and political crisis is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past. That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 19:45 - Dems Get Taste Of Own Medicine After Furious Sanders Fires Back At CNN's 'Ludicrous' Sexism Claim
Dems Get Taste Of Own Medicine After Furious Sanders Fires Back At CNN’s ‘Ludicrous’ Sexism Claim
The establishment is in full panic mode over Bernie Sanders, whose rise in the polls has been accompanied by not one, but two Monday morning media hit pieces.
First, as we reported earlier, Democrats have been riled by Sanders’ attacks on Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren – recently saying that President Trump will ‘eat Joe Biden’s lunch’ if he is the nominee.
Second, Sanders took flack after it emerged that campaign volunteers have been telling potential voters that Warren is trying to capture upper-income Democrats and would not attract new voters to the party.
In response, CNN (one day before a CNN debate) reports in a thinly-sourced article that Sanders told Warren in a private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win in 2020 against Donald Trump – based on the accounts of four people “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.”
That evening, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.
Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN. –CNN
Lightly sourced and denied by Sanders. The liberal media desperately wants these candidates and their campaigns to fight over bullshit.
Before you dig in your heels, ask yourself why that might be. https://t.co/UmDnEObaCP
— Sam Adler-Bell (@SamAdlerBell) January 13, 2020
if this were true, seems like warren would have a responsibility to go on the record with confirmation! https://t.co/oTDgcmOJQm
— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) January 13, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Sanders hit back, telling CNN “It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win.”
“It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.“
If this stuff is coming *from* the Warren campaign, shame on them. It won’t help her win, but it could destroy our best chance at a progressive presidency. https://t.co/lnjhBGxCzj
— Sam Adler-Bell (@SamAdlerBell) January 13, 2020
Needless to say, there aren’t a lot of hot takes floating around which are supportive of this unbelievable, second-hand claim.
Agreed. I have a hard time imagining this story is true. It’s just not what Bernie would say and I don’t think Warren would leak it. https://t.co/fiGiSKmvFB
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) January 13, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 19:27 - Champagne Tariffs Could Double Prices In US, Trigger 50,000 Job Losses
Champagne Tariffs Could Double Prices In US, Trigger 50,000 Job Losses
The Trump administration is considering 100% tariffs on French goods, including wine and champagne, in response to the country’s planned digital services tax, reported Reuters.
This would mean a $70 bottle of Moet & Chandon Grand Vintage could cost $130 if the new round of tariffs is implemented.
Trump administration officials have already said if France goes ahead with its controversial new tax on the profits of large tech firms such as Facebook and Google, a 100% tariff on $2.4 billion of French Champagne, handbags, cheese, and other products would be seen.
A 25% tariff on non-sparkling European wines remains in effect since October after the Trump administration got into a dispute with the European Union over Airbus’ subsides.
Industry experts told Reuters that French companies were able to absorb 25% tariffs, though, at a 100% rate, this would be impossible and would have to pass it through to consumers.
Next week, E.U. Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer will discuss trade disputes in a meeting.
David Parker, chief executive of Benchmark Wine Group, a top U.S. supplier of wines, warned that 100% tariffs could cost the industry upwards of 50,000 jobs.
The U.S. is the largest foreign market for French sparkling wine. If tariffs are increased, U.S. consumers will reject higher prices and shift to other brands. French companies would have to rework their supply chains towards Asia and South American markets.
Robert Tobiassen, president of the National Association of Beverage Importers, said higher tariffs are likely, and that could be damaging to the industry.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 19:25 - Global Births & Population Of Potential Mothers… Down, Down, Down
Global Births & Population Of Potential Mothers… Down, Down, Down
Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,
Today, rather than anecdotal economics and narratives of overpopulation, I offer a view of the world from the bottom up. Based on 2019 UN population data, I offer a ninety year window of annual births and those of childbearing age globally, regionally, and for some selected countries. Gauging the size and changing nature of the “pie” is a question business owners, economists, and even presidents should know. How many potential customers / consumers / workers presently exist and how will this be changing going forward? Based on this, business’ and nations could make informed decisions on spending, leverage, and growth. So, without further wasted digital ink, I will show that annual births have peaked in each world region (except Africa), and subsequently when the female childbearing population peaked or will peak.
Global Childbearing Females, Births
From 1950 to 1989, annual births rose by almost 1.5 million a year. Since 1989, global births have essentially stalled at around 135+/- million births a year (black columns below), while the growth of the potential quantity of females of childbearing age (red line) has slowed.
-
1950-1989 +424 million, +111% 20-40yr/old females… Annual Births +57 million, +73%
-
1989-2020 +342 million, +40% females… Annual Births +0 million, +0%
-
2020-2030 +28 million, +2.5% females… Annual Births +0.5 million, +0.3%
-
2030-2040 +62 million, +5.3% females… Annual Births +1.4 million, +1%
Global Births, Excluding Africa
But if we exclude Africa, a radically different picture emerges. Why exclude Africa? Africa is incredibly poor, consumes just 3% of global energy/exports, and has very low levels of emigration. Essentially, what happens in Africa stays in Africa. From 1950 through 1989, global births (x-Africa) rose from 70 million births annually to 112 million annually. But 1989 was not only the beginning of a deceleration in births, it represented a hard pivot for mankind from growth to decline. Had births (x-Africa) continued to rise at the pre-1989 rate, annual births in 2040 would have reached 168+/- million. In the 30+ years since 1989, global annual births (x-Africa) have declined by 17 million, a 15% decline. The concern of overpopulation and wildly rising consumer bases ended over thirty years ago. Mankind’s footprint (x-Africa) among the folks that consume 97% of everything will be persistently smaller as this plays out.
World Childbearing Females, Births (both X-Africa)
Below, focusing on annual global births (x-Africa) and the 20 to 40 year old female population. Two main points, outside of Africa, all regions either have (or in the case of Asia, soon will have) negative fertility rates and the total population of childbearing females (x-Africa) will soon begin declining. With births peaking in 1989 and declining since, the world would have to wait about thirty years until the childbearing population began declining. Queue 2020 and the decline in those capable of giving birth is just a few years from beginning. Over the next ten years, the number of females capable of childbearing will decline by about 26 million or a 3% decline. This shrinking populace plus ongoing negative fertility rates means births will begin declining at an accelerating pace. The charts below are the UN medium variants which are consistently too high…but reality will be births falling faster than projected although the exact course of that decline is simply unknowable.
-
1950-1989 +373 million, +109% females… Annual Births +43 million, +61%
-
1989-2020 +228 million, +32% females… Annual Births -17 million, -15%
-
2020-2030 -26 million, -3% females… Annual Births -5.6 million, -6%
-
2030-2040 -6.4 million, -1% females… Annual Births -4.2 million, -5%
The Nexus of Inflation / Deflation
Family formation and child rearing ultimately drive spending and consumption. The chart below shows what is at the heart of global inflation; the year over year change in the female childbearing population (red columns), mirrored by the Federal Funds rate (yellow line), and the impact on annual global births (black line).
The soon to be declining quantity of females of childbearing age coupled with ongoing declining fertility rates means births will continue declining… and organic demand declining… and only via destructive federal government / central bank ZIRP, NIRP, and market manipulation, can consumption and asset prices be manipulated upward.
Regional Year of Peak Births, % Declines Since
While births have declined globally, the timing and depth of the declines have varied widely. To detail this, the chart below calls out the regional year of peak births and percentage decline in births from that peak through 2020. Eastern European births peaked in 1950 (or earlier) and have declined by 51% since…East Asia peaked far later, in 1989, but has fallen far faster since with annual births down 45%. Western European births peaked in 1969 and births are down 36% since. As for the US, annual births essentially doubled peaked in 1957 and a miniscule amount higher in 2007…births are down 14% since. Latin American (South America, Central America, plus the Caribbean) births peaked in 1995 and are down 11% since. South East Asia peaked in 2015 and are already down 9%. As for India/Pakistan, etc. of South Asia, annual births peaked in 2003 and after a long plateau, have declined 3% thus far.
East Asia Childbearing Females, Annual Births
(China, Japan, Taiwan, S/N Korea, Mongolia)
The 45% decline in East Asian births since 1989 has changed the world. By 2000, the East Asian female childbearing population peaked and likewise entered a secular decline. Over the next decade, this decline in births beginning three decades ago, will severely impact the size of the childbearing female population. 20 to 40 year old females capable of childbirth in East Asia will decline by 40 million persons or -17% over the next ten years. This collapse in those capable of childbearing coupled with ongoing declines in fertility rates (those willing to undertake childbearing) has the potential for much larger declines in births than the UN is currently projecting…and I offer a more likely quantity of births. I’m suggesting that, by 2040, annual births in East Asia will be down something like 70% from the 1989 peak. All the debt, excess capacity, bridges to nowhere, speculative unoccupied housing, etc. will likely be more than this region can bear.
-
1950-1989 +132 million, +135% females… Annual Births +12 million, +53%
-
1989-2000 +28 million, +12%… Annual Births -11 million, -32%
-
2000-2020 -31 million, -12%… Annual Births -5 million, -22%
-
2020-2030 -39 million, -17%… Annual Births -2 million, -11% (-5 million, -26%)
-
2030-2040 -11 million, -6%… Annual Births -1 million, -5% (-2.5 million, -18%)
Eastern Europe Childbearing Females, Annual Births
(Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia)
Like East Asia, the Eastern European childbearing population is in the midst of an unavoidable freefall. Those females capable of childbirth will decline by 8.5 million or a 22% decline. Like East Asia, the collapse of those capable and ongoing collapse in those willing (fertility rate) will lead to significantly lower births than the UN is projecting. By 2040, annual births in Eastern European births are likely to be down 70%+.
-
1950-1987 +8 million, +20% females…Annual Births -1.6 million, -25%
-
1987-2011 -1.8 million, -4%…Annual Births -1.4, -29%
-
2011-2020 -6 million, -14%…Annual Births -250k, -7.5%
-
2020-2030 -8.5 million, -22%…Annual Births -510, -16% (-1 million, -30%)
-
2030-2040 +800k, +2.6%…Annual Births +50k, +2.6% (-100k, -3.4%)
Western Europe Childbearing Females, Annual Births
Like East Asia and Eastern Europe, the childbearing females are in decline but the decline will be significantly gentler if high rates of immigration continue. Assuming ongoing immigration, the fall in births may likewise not be as stupendous. Because of immigration, Western European births are likely to be down “only” 50% from the ’64 peak.
-
1964-1993 +12 million, +20% Females… Annual Births -2.1 million, -31%
-
1993-2020 -8.5 million, -14% Females… Annual Births -330k, -7%
-
2020-2030 -3.6 million, -7% Females… Annual Births -210k, -5% (-420k, -10%)
-
2030-2040 -1.4 million, -3% Females… Annual Births -0, -0% (-380k, -10%)
US Childbearing Females, Annual Births
US births essentially peaked in 1957 and only in one year thereafter (2007) did the US ever have more children than in 1957. The US childbearing population of females rose rapidly from 1970 to 1990 but has been little changed ever since. The ongoing declining US fertility rate has been overwhelming the relatively minor growth in the childbearing female population, resulting in fast falling total births since 2007. Most / all of the anticipated growth in the US childbearing female population is anticipated to come from immigration, but primarily due to stricter border enforcement, US immigration is at low levels not seen for decades. The impact will be little to no growth in the childbearing population coupled with deeply negative fertility rates, resulting in ongoing falling total US births. Based on this, annual US births are likely to be down over 20% by 2040 instead of the Census and UN estimates of rising births.
By the way, 10 US states are now outright depopulating (and this number will keep growing) and likely over half of the states have declining under 65 year old populations only disguised by even faster growing 65+ year old populations. As for counties, likely 60% to 80% of counties have declining under 65 year old populations. While major metropolitan centers continue growing, it is primarily at the expense of rural American emigration.
-
1957-1990 +17 million, +70% females… Annual Births -100k, -3%
-
1990-2007 -1 million, -2% females… Annual Births +140k, +3%
-
2007-2020 +4.7 million, +12% females… Annual Births -600k, -14%
-
2020-2030 +1.3 million, +3% females… Annual Births -400k, -11%
-
2030-2040 -1 million, -2% females… Annual Births -700k, -20%
As for the most optimistic of population growth scenarios, the chart below details the shifting population growth (as per UN #’s) per twenty year periods from among the young to almost solely among the elderly…with all the associated problems. Actual births and under 40 year old population growth will turn to outright decline if my birth projection and/or ongoing tanking immigration continue.
Latin America / Caribbean / South America
(Everything Western Hemisphere except US/Canada)
Annual births across Latin America peaked in 1995 and have been gently receding ever since. The outcome of these declining births and net emigration is a childbearing population that will begin declining by the mid 2020’s. From there, births will begin declining faster. Annual births will only continue downward and likely far more than the UN’s projection of a 27% decline by 2040. How far? Your guess is probably as good as mine.
-
1950-1995 +52 million females, +216%… Annual Births +5.4 million, +89%
-
1995-2020 +27 million females, +35%… Annual Births -1.2 million, -11%
-
2020-2030 +0.6 million females, +1%… Annual Births -0.7 million, -7%
-
2030-2040 -3.3 million females, -3%… Annual Births -0.7 million, -7%
South East Asia Childbearing Females, Annual Births
(Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam)
This region also had a double peak in annual births, 1985 and just slightly higher in 2015. A flat childbearing population coupled with mostly negative fertility rates among these nations will result in ongoing declining annual births, according to the UN, down something like 14% by 2040.
-
1950-1985 +36 million, +149% females…Annual Births +6 million, +113%
-
1985-2015 +42 million, +70% females…Annual Births +200k, +2%
-
2015-2030 +3.9 million, +4% females…Annual Births -1.1, -10%
-
2030-2040 +0.5 million, +1% females…Annual Births -0.5 million, -5%
South Asia Childbearing Females, Annual Births
(India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Bhutan/Nepal, Sri Lanka)
The worlds most populous region saw fast rising annual births from 1950 until 1986, more than doubling annual births over that period. However, since 1986, annual births have essentially been unchanged and peak births occurred somewhere around 2003. This means the growth of the childbearing population is nearly over and with fertility rates now nearly down to 2.1 and ongoing net emigration, the UN projects annual births will be down 14% from peak births by 2040.
-
1950-1986 +81 million females, +115%… Annual Births +19 million, +117%
-
1986-2020 +156 million females, +103%… Annual Births +1.2 million, +3%
-
2020-2030 +19 million females, +6%… Annual Births -2.2 million, -6%
-
2030-2040 +2.5 million females, +1%… Annual Births -2.4 million, -7%
Extra Credit-
The following countries are unlikely to survive within their current monetary, political, and geographical locations as the populations collapse against skyrocketing debt, surging overcapacity, and collapsing domestic and international import demand.
China 20 to 40yr/old females, Annual Births
As of 2019, Chinese births have fallen 48% since the 1989 peak and childbearing females have declined 11% since the 2000 peak. By 2040, females will be down 31% and births down between 55% to 65%.
Below, the big picture in China. The next twenty years will be a collapse in domestic demand for everything except adult diapers as the under 40 year old population falls 140 million (this is using UN #’s, not my lower and more realistic #’s) and the 70+ segment rises by the same 140 million.
Japan 20 to 40yr/old females, Annual Births
As of 2019, Japanese births have fallen 64% and childbearing females down 31%…by 2040 childbearing females will fall by 43% and births will be down between 66% to 77%.
Detailed below is that the next twenty years will be the end of population growth for any age segment in Japan. After 2040, all population segments will be pointing downward as Japan’s population collapses (again, this is using UN #’s, not mine).
South Korea 20 to 40yr/old females, Annual Births
As of 2019, South Korean births have declined 71% from the 1960 peak…the childbearing female population has declined 23%. By 2040, childbearing females will be down nearly 50% and annual births will be down more than the UN’s 72% projection; more likely 85% or more.
The full picture in South Korea, the chart below details the changing nature of the Korean population. Over the next twenty years, the young and working age populations will sink (again, using UN #’s) while the number of elderly soar. The actual #’s will be significantly lower as more realistic births become evident but the elderly population growth will remain unchanged.
This is not viable in South Korea, Japan, or China, among so many others and typically when something cannot be, it will not be. I suspect “something” will likely intercede before too long that radically changes the picture.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 19:05 -
- Senate Trial Likely To Start Next Week After Pelosi Ends Impeachment Impasse
Senate Trial Likely To Start Next Week After Pelosi Ends Impeachment Impasse
President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial will likely begin Jan. 21, according to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
The news comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that that two articles will be transferred to the Senate, ending a three-week standoff over how the trial would be conducted, according to Bloomberg.
“Tuesday is what it’s feeling like,” Cornyn told reporters, adding that he expects the articles and the names of impeachment managers from the House this week (likely Jerrold Nadler of NY and Adam Schiff of CA).
Cornyn also says there will likely be a full trial, as there won’t be enough votes to dismiss the charges without one as Trump has suggested over Twitter.
“My understanding is that most Republicans want to have a full trial,” said Conryn.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg cites a Quinnipiac University poll which found that 2/3 of US voters want former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify – a finding which may convince Republicans to join with Democrats in calling him as a witness.
Bolton’s offer to testify at the trial if subpoenaed has been central to attempts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats to force the GOP-controlled Senate to allow witnesses. It would take just four Republican senators to vote with Democrats to get a majority on the question of witnesses. Maine Senator Susan Collins, one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents in 2020, said last week she’s been talking with a small number of her colleagues about allowing new testimony.The poll, conducted Jan. 8-12 among self-identified registered voters, also found a bare majority, 51%, approved of the House vote to impeach Trump and 46% disapproved. Voters were divided on the verdict of a trial, with 48% saying the Senate should not vote to remove the president from office and 46% saying Trump should be removed.
The poll of 1,562 people nationwide has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. –Bloomberg
According to the report, Nadler and Schiff are likely to be the top names on the prosecution team in the Senate trial, according to Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan during a Monday interview with CNN, who said it would be a “Talented group, obviously with Adam Schiff and Nadler — one would expect them.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 18:45 - "As Dangerous As Guns" – Vermont Plans Total Cellphone Ban For Under-21s
“As Dangerous As Guns” – Vermont Plans Total Cellphone Ban For Under-21s
Authored by John Vibes via TheMindUnleashed.com,
A senator from Vermont recently proposed a total ban on cellphone use for anyone under 21-years-old. Democratic Sen. John Rodgers says that he is sponsoring the bill because “cellphones are just as dangerous as guns.”
While Rodgers says that he knows the bill will not make it past the judiciary committee, he is using the effort to draw a comparison between cellphones and firearms, which are illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase in the state of Vermont.
“I’m not going to push for the bill to pass. I wouldn’t vote for the thing. This is just to make a point,” Rodgers said, according to CNN.
The text of the bill reads:
“It is clear that persons under 21 years of age are not developmentally mature enough to safely possess them.“
If the bill ever were actually voted into law violations could result in fines of up to $1,000 – or even up to a year in prison.
Rodgers said that he established the bill to intentionally parallel Vermont’s gun legislation. In the bill Rodgers references the dangers of texting and driving and calls attention to how the problems of bullying have evolved in the social media age. He even suggested that cellphones have played a role in mass shootings.
“The Internet and social media, accessed primarily through cellphones, are used to radicalize and recruit terrorists, fascists, and other extremists,” the text of the bill read.
When Vermont constituents reacted with understandable anger, Rodgers insisted that his bill was intended as somewhat of a troll which was intended to highlight the importance of the 2nd amendment.
“I think people need to think about what liberties they’re willing to give up for safety. My position is that no good can come from taking rights from good people,” Rogers said.
“People in rural areas are largely independent, and we take it upon ourselves to stay safe. Without the Second Amendment, we couldn’t do that,” he added.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 18:25 - Mueller Probe Witness Faces 30 Years In Jail After Guilty Plea To Second Child Porn Charge
Mueller Probe Witness Faces 30 Years In Jail After Guilty Plea To Second Child Porn Charge
Having been previously convicted of transporting child pornography in 1991, George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who served as a witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, pleaded guilty to two charges relating to sexual exploitation of children on Monday, according to The Washington Post.
As we detailed in July 2019 when Nader was indicted, Mueller’s team discovered child pornography on his phone while interviewing him about a meeting between Blackwater founder Erik Prince, the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and a high-level Russian official with ties to President Vladimir Putin, according to WaPo.
Soon after the images were discovered, prosecutors reportedly filed a criminal complaint against Nader over the images, but they kept the charges under seal, and Nader’s lawyers were never informed of his impending arrest all the while that he continued to cooperate with the Mueller probe.
That means Mueller kept a suspected child abuser and pornographer on the streets while it used him as a witness. And when Nader was no longer useful, he was finally being charged.
Nader has claimed the images were not child pornography but admitted to having received an email including violent sexual images of infants in 2012.
WaPo details the disgusting acts of this key Mueller witness, noting that according to Czech court documents, he paid at least five teenage boys to engage in sex acts, four of whom were under 15.
He engaged them through a boy he met at a Prague arcade, who said he “knew lots of boys who had been in elementary school with him who would be interested.”
Nader enticed the boys with “money, jewelry, mobile telephones, clothing, care and housing,” according to the court record, and took some to the city’s annual Matthew’s Fair.
While the serial pedophile’s charges carry a maximum penalty of 30 years, prosecutors (for reasons that are simply beyond our ken) in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed to recommend the mandatory minimum of 10 years.
Sentencing is set for April 10.
Additionally, as we reported previously, Nader was indicted in December on charges of illegally funneling campaign funds to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign using straw donors, according to Politico.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 – 18:05
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...