- European Leaders Discuss Plan For European Army
Submitted by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,
- Critics say that the creation of a European army, a long-held goal of European federalists, would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU.
- Others say that efforts to move forward on European defense integration show that European leaders have learned little from Brexit, and are determined to continue their quest to build a European superstate regardless of opposition from large segments of the European public.
- "Those of us who have always warned about Europe's defense ambitions have always been told not to worry… We're always told not to worry about the next integration and then it happens. We've been too often conned before and we must not be conned again." — Liam Fox, former British defense secretary.
- "[C]reation of EU defense structures, separate from NATO, will only lead to division between transatlantic partners at a time when solidarity is needed in the face of many difficult and dangerous threats to the democracies." — Geoffrey Van Orden, UK Conservative Party defense spokesman.
European leaders are discussing "far-reaching proposals" to build a pan-European military, according to a French defense ministry document leaked to the German newspaper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung.
The efforts are part of plans to relaunch the European Union at celebrations in Rome next March marking the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Community.
The document confirms rumors that European officials are rushing ahead with defense integration now that Britain — the leading military power in Europe — will be exiting the 28-member European Union.
British leaders have repeatedly blocked efforts to create a European army because of concerns that it would undermine the NATO alliance, the primary defense structure in Europe since 1949.
Proponents of European defense integration argue that it is needed to counter growing security threats and would save billions of euros in duplication between countries.
Critics say that the creation of a European army, a long-held goal (see Appendix below) of European federalists, would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU.
Others say that efforts to move forward on European defense integration show that European leaders have learned little from Brexit — the June 23 decision by British voters to leave the EU — and are determined to continue their quest to build a European superstate regardless of opposition from large segments of the European public.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that it had obtained a copy of a six-page position paper, jointly written by French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart, Ursula von der Leyen. The document calls for the establishment of a "common and permanent" European military headquarters, as well as the creation of EU military structures, including an EU Logistics Command and an EU Medical Command.
The document calls on EU member states to integrate logistics and procurement, coordinate military R&D and synchronize policies in matters of financing and military planning. EU intelligence gathering would be improved through the use of European satellites; a common EU military academy would "promote a common esprit de corps."
According to the newspaper, the document will be distributed to European leaders at an informal summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, on September 16. France and Germany will ask the leaders of the other EU member states not only to approve the measures, but also to "discuss a fast implementation."
Specifically, France and Germany will for the first time activate Article 44 of the Lisbon Treaty (also known as the European Constitution). This clause allows certain EU member states "which are willing and have the necessary capability" to proceed with the "task" of defense integration, even if other EU member states disapprove.
According to Süddeutsche Zeitung:
"In the wake of the British referendum to leave the European Union, Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have decided to demonstrate the EU's strength and to push the remaining member states to show more unity. Especially in defense policy, many projects were put on hold because Britain vetoed them. Without London, the two EU founding states, France and Germany, hope for swift decisions."
On September 8, Defense News reported that the creation of a European army was the central focus of an August 22 meeting between the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in Naples, where the three declared "the beginning of a new Europe." That meeting was followed by a meeting of defense ministers from the three countries in Paris on September 5.
According to Defense News, Italy is lobbying France and Germany to "back a plan for European tax breaks and financing for joint European defense procurement and development programs, as part of a bid to build a European army."
A confidential draft document circulated by Italy calls for "fiscal and financial incentives to support new EU cooperative programs for development and joint purchases of equipment and infrastructure supporting the EU's Common Security and Defense Policy."
In a September 8 interview with La Repubblica, the EU's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, called for the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters in Brussels that would manage all current and future EU military operations. "This could become the nucleus around which a common European defense structure could be built," she said.
Mogherini insisted that "we are not talking about a European army but about European defense: something we can really do, concretely, starting now." She also stressed that EU defense policy would remain under the control of European governments rather than the European Commission, the powerful executive arm of the EU.
On September 7, however, The Times reported that Mogherini will present EU leaders attending the summit in Bratislava with a "road map" and a "timetable" for creating EU military structures, which are "the foundation of a European army." According to newspaper, her plans for military structures able "to act autonomously" from NATO have led to fears that "the EU is seeking to rival the transatlantic alliance."
The Times quoted Mogherini as saying she was taking advantage of the "political space" opened by the Brexit vote:
"It might sound a bit dramatic but we are at this turning point. We could relaunch our European project and make it more functional and powerful for our citizens and the rest of the world. Or we could diminish its intensity and power. We have the political space today to do things that were not really doable in previous years."
On May 27, the Sunday Times reported that steps towards creating a European army were being kept secret from British voters until the day after the June 23 referendum:
"In an effort to avoid derailing the Prime Minister's 'Remain' campaign, the policy plans will not be sent to national governments until the day after Britons vote. Until then, only a small group of EU political and security committee ambassadors, who must leave their electronic devices outside a sealed room, can read the proposal."
On June 28, just days after the British referendum, Mogherini presented European leaders attending an EU summit in Brussels with the "EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy." The document explicitly calls for European defense integration, and implicitly calls for the creation of a European army.
According to the document, the EU strategy "nurtures the ambition of strategic autonomy for the European Union." It adds: "Gradual synchronization and mutual adaptation of national defense planning cycles and capability development can enhance strategic convergence between member states."
In an interview with The Telegraph, Liam Fox, a former defense secretary who served under former Prime Minister David Cameron, said:
"Those of us who have always warned about Europe's defense ambitions have always been told not to worry, but step-by-step that ever closer union is becoming a reality. We cannot afford to be conned in this referendum as we were conned in 1975.
"The best way to protect ourselves is to stay close to the US. The US defense budget is bigger than the next 11 countries in the world put together. Europe's defense intentions are a dangerous fantasy and risk cutting us off from our closest and most powerful ally.
"We're always told not to worry about the next integration and then it happens. We've been too often conned before and we must not be conned again."
The Conservative Party's defense spokesman, Geoffrey Van Orden, said the implications of the EU's defense ambitions are worrying:
"We can all see that the EU might play a useful role in conflict prevention and in some civil aspects of crisis management. But its ambitions go beyond that. The EU motive is not to create additional military capability but to achieve defense integration as a key step on the road to a federal EU state.
"The US and indeed the UK are being misled if they imagine that such moves will enhance NATO — the key guarantor of our collective defense. On the contrary, creation of EU defense structures, separate from NATO, will only lead to division between transatlantic partners at a time when solidarity is needed in the face of many difficult and dangerous threats to the democracies."
Mike Hookem, the defense spokesman of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), said his party had been warning about the dangers posed by the EU army concept for years:
"I'm pleased to see people are finally waking up. An EU army is not some Eurosceptic fantasy, there are many in Brussels hell-bent on making it happen."
Soldiers from the Eurocorps on parade in Strasbourg, France, on January 31, 2013. Eurocorps is an intergovernmental military unit of approximately 1,000 soldiers from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain, stationed in Strasbourg. (Image: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)
Appendix
Select quotes regarding a European army
European federalists have been calling for the creation of a European army in one form or another since 1950. Although a European army is still a long way away from becoming reality, the ultimate goal of European federalists is full defense integration leading to a European military under supranational control.
Since the Lisbon Treaty, which forms the constitutional basis of the European Union, entered into force in December 2009, the political momentum toward European defense integration has picked up steam. The drive toward European defense integration has accelerated during the Obama administration, which has often appeared indifferent to Europe and transatlantic relations. Another important obstacle to European defense integration was removed when Britons voted in June 2016 to exit the European Union.
What follows is a collection of quotes from senior European officials regarding a European army and integrated defense.
September 9. The EU's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said:
"I believe a window of opportunity has been opened to give life to a European defense. I wanted to send the message that, despite the British exit, Europe can and must move forward with the process of integration. The prospect of Brexit offered an opportunity not to be slowed by the country that was always most determinedly opposed to the idea of pooling the instruments of defense."
August 26. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a staunch critic of the EU's migration policies, said a joint European army was needed to keep migrants out. At a news conference after a meeting between Central European member states and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Warsaw, Orbán said: "We should list the issue of security as a priority, and we should start setting up a common European army."
August 22. Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka called for greater European military integration:
"Our experiences with the last migration wave have shown the importance of Europe's internal borders. In the face of uncontrolled mass migration, even states in the center of Europe have realized that internal borders must be better controlled. Aside from better coordinated foreign and security policy, I also believe that in the long term, we will be unable to do without a joint European army."
July 23. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said:
"The withdrawal of the British from the EU has led to a significant reduction in the continent's military strength, and from a military policy perspective we must not remain in this defenseless position… A European army must protect the continent from two sides, from the East and from the South, in terms of protecting against terrorism and migration. Europe cannot even continue to exist without an alliance — a joint EU army."
July 13. The German Defense Ministry released a white paper outlining the country's future defense and security policies. The document calls for steps leading to the creation of an EU army, such as the integration of military capabilities and defense industries. "We are aiming to establish a permanent European civil-military operational headquarters in the medium term," it says. The white paper also says that citizens of other EU countries could be allowed to serve in the German army. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:
"Britain has paralyzed the European Union on the issues of foreign and security policy. This cannot mean that the rest of Europe remain inactive, but rather we need to move forward on these big issues."
June 28. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier released a joint document titled "A Strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties." It states:
"The security of EU member states is deeply interconnected, as these threats now affect the continent as a whole: any threat to one member state is also a threat to others. We therefore regard our security as one and indivisible. We consider the European Union and the European security order to be part of our core interests and will safeguard them in any circumstances.
"In this context, France and Germany recommit to a shared vision of Europe as a security union, based on solidarity and mutual assistance between member states in support of common security and defense policy. Providing security for Europe as well as contributing to peace and stability globally is at the heart of the European project.
"France and Germany will promote the EU as an independent and global actor able to leverage its unique array of expertise and tools, civilian and military, in order to defend and promote the interests of its citizens. France and Germany will promote integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all EU policy instruments.
"The EU should be able to plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively, with the support of a permanent civil-military chain of command. The EU should be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces and provide common financing for its operations. Within the framework of the EU, member states willing to establish permanent structured cooperation in the field of defense or to push ahead to launch operations should be able to do so in a flexible manner. If needed, EU member states should consider establishing standing maritime forces or acquiring EU-owned capabilities in other key areas."
June 26. In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, the Chairman of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok, called for the immediate creation of a joint military headquarters and for the eventual establishment of an EU army:
"We need a common military headquarters and a coalition of the willing in accordance with the permanent structural cooperation of the EU Treaty. An EU army could eventually arise from such a group. This could help to strengthen the role of Europeans in the security and defense policy, together better fulfill the responsibility of Europe in the world and also to achieve more synergies in defense spending."
June 24. French President François Hollande said:
"Europe needs to be a sovereign power deciding its own future and promoting its model. France will therefore be leading efforts to ensure Europe focuses on the most important issues: the security and defense of our continent, to protect our borders and preserve peace in the face of threats."
May 29. British Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt said: "A centrally controlled army would be a massive step to the EU's goal of full political integration, but it would be a very dangerous move."
February 4. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen confirmed an agreement to integrate some 800 German soldiers into the Dutch navy. While in Amsterdam, where she met with the Dutch Defense Minister, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, von der Leyen called the plan a "prime example for the building of a European defense union."
December 15, 2015. The European Commission proposed creating a European Border and Coast Guard. The proposal, which was put forward in response to the ongoing European migrant crisis, called for a rapid reaction force of 1,500 officers who would be able to deploy even if a member state did not ask for its help.
October 15, 2015. The president of the European People's Party (EPP), Joseph Daul, said: "We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe."
September 12, 2015. An unpublished position paper drawn up by Europe and Defence policy committees of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Party (CDU) was leaked to The Telegraph. The document sets out a detailed 10-point plan for military co-operation in Europe. It calls for "a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term." It adds:
"In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.
"In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterized by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability."
June 15, 2015. Michel Barnier, Special Adviser on European Defence and Security Policy to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, wrote:
"Member States are slow to accept that they need to go beyond a model where defense is a matter of strict national sovereignty…. It is time for a reckoning: traditional methods of cooperation have reached their limits and proved insufficient. European defense needs a paradigm change in line with the exponential increase in global threats and the volatility of our neighborhood. The past has shown that European defense does move ahead if and when there is political will."
March 9, 2015. In an interview with Die Welt, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU should establish its own army to show Russia it is serious about defending European values:
"Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy too, we are not taken seriously. A common European army would show the world that there will never again be war between EU countries. Such an army would help us to build a common foreign and security policy and allow Europe to meet its responsibilities in the world. With its own army, Europe could respond credibly to a threat to peace in a member country or in a neighboring country of the European Union."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said they support Juncker's proposal for a European army. In an interview with Tagesspiegel, Steinmeier added:
"The long-term goal of a European army is a major policy objective and has been part of the Social Democratic Party's (SPD) party program for many years. Given the new risks and threats to peace in Europe we now need, as a first step, a rapid adaptation and updating of the common European security strategy."
March 8, 2015. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said:
"I think that the German army is ready, under certain circumstances, to be subordinated to the control of another nation. That is the goal, that in the European Union we step by step more firmly establish our cooperation, especially in security policy. This intertwining of armies with a view to having a European army is the future."
May 15, 2014. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European People's Party lead candidate for president of the next European Commission, wrote:
"I believe that we need to work on a stronger Europe when it comes to security and defense matters. Yes, Europe is chiefly a 'soft power.' But even the strongest soft powers cannot make do in the long run without at least some integrated defense capacities. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for the possibility, for those Member States who want to do so, to pool their defense capabilities in the form of a permanent structured cooperation."
December 19, 2013. The speaker of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, called for the creation of a European army: "If we wish to defend our values and interests, if we wish to maintain the security of our citizens, then a majority of MEPs consider that we need a headquarters for civil and military missions in Brussels and deployable troops."
November 15, 2009. In an interview with The Times, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said it is a "necessary objective to have a European army." He added:
"Every country duplicates its forces, each of us puts armored cars, men, tanks, planes, into Afghanistan. If there were a European army, Italy could send planes, France could send tanks, Britain could send armored cars, and in this way we would optimize the use of our resources. Perhaps we won't get there immediately, but that is the idea of a European army."
May 6, 2008. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called for the establishment of the European army "as soon as possible." He said he had been in talks with his French counterpart to discuss "future structures" of a European army.
December 10-11, 1999. European officials meeting in Helsinki agreed to develop a European Rapid Reaction Force. Also known as the Helsinki Headline Goal, EU member states pledged that by 2003 they would be able to deploy a European military force of 60,000 troops within 60 days and for a period of potentially one year. This goal has never been met.
December 3-4, 1988. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac met at the French port city of Saint-Malo to discuss future EU defense integration. The summit declaration, which laid the political foundation for a common European defense policy, stated:
"The European Union needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage… The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises."
October 24, 1950. The Pleven Plan, named after French Prime Minister René Pleven, was the first plan to create a unified European army. It proposed the "immediate creation of a European army tied to the political institutions of a united Europe." It stated:
"A European army cannot be created simply by placing national military units side by side, since, in practice, this would merely mask a coalition of the old sort. Tasks that can be tackled only in common must be matched by common institutions. A united European army, made up of forces from the various European nations must, as far as possible, pool all of its human and material components under a single political and military European authority."
The Pleven Plan was rejected by the French Parliament because it infringed on France's national sovereignty.
- The World Is Turning Ugly As 2016 Winds Down
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
I have to say that the negative reverberations in our current economic and political environment are becoming so strong that it is impossible for people to not feel at least some uneasiness in their gut. I imagine this is the same kind of sensation many felt from 1914 to 1918 during World War I and the terrible birth of communism, or perhaps in the early 1930s at the onset of the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. Some global changes are so disturbing that they send shockwaves through the collective unconscious before they ever hit the mainstream. People know that something is about to happen, even if they cannot yet clearly define it.
At the beginning of August in my article “2016 Will End With Economic Instability And A Trump Presidency” I stated that:
"I believe a softer downturn will begin before the election (the U.S. presidential election) takes place, most likely starting in September. This will give a boost to the Trump campaign, or at least, that is what the polls will likely say. I would also watch for some banking officials and media pundits to blame this downturn on Trump’s rise in the polling data. The narrative will be that just the threat of a Trump presidency is “putting the markets on edge."
Unfortunately, it would seem so far that this prediction was correct. Currently global markets have crossed into severe volatility with a vengeance after around three months of eerie calm. Why? Well, as I warned in the same article linked above as well as numerous others since the beginning of this year, the Federal Reserve is determined to continue raising interest rates into a recessionary environment as they almost always do, and equities markets addicted to cheap debt cannot tolerate even one additional rate hike from the central bank.
So far all evidence suggests that the Fed plans to raise rates again soon; I believe at the end of this month. The only seemingly "anti-hike" voice at the Fed so far has been board member Lael Brainard, but even her statements promote a false narrative that a America is on track to "recovery".
Many normally “dovish” members of the Fed have openly suggested that now is the time to hike. Voting members at the Fed have been vocal about a shift in policy. The latest example being head of the Bank of Cleveland, Loretta Mester. She argues that rates have remained “too low for too long,” and rejected notions that lower rates are necessary to maintain stability.
This is the same kind of language Fed members used right before the rate hike in December 2015, the first rate hike in around a decade. And, to add to the fervor, even JP Morgan Chase head Jamie Dimon is calling for interest rates to rise.
Get ready folks, because all the naysayers that claimed another rate hike is “impossible" are probably about to be proven wrong yet again.
My warning on an accelerating Trump campaign being blamed for weak stock markets has also come true. Already, Bloomberg is launching the meme that the idea of Hillary Clinton losing the election to Trump “because of her health” is a “landmine for vulnerable markets.”
This is some incredible spin by the elitist controlled media, but again, very predictable. The globalists are setting the stage to blame the economic collapse they created on conservative movements. Clinton’s “health issues” are being set up as the scapegoat for a Trump win, which conjures additional social unrest as many on the Left will argue (in the event of a Trump win) that Trump prevailed on a technicality. That is to say, the extreme Left will argue that Trump’s presidency is not legitimate.
Another scenario is also possible but I think less likely — the potential for Clinton to bow out of the election due to her health, causing a rationale for a postponed election. I do not think a postponed election really serves the interests of the elites, but it would certainly trigger massive chaos if it occurred. Only in the strangest of any election year in American history could this even be thought of as a legitimate danger.
Another global indicator, oil, is tumbling yet again as all the jawboning from OPEC on a “production freeze” has failed to boost crude prices for more than a week at a time. Frankly, no one is buying the hype anymore. Those who bet on the WTI index shooting past $50 to $60 a barrel this year should have been paying more attention to alternative analysts. The only other factor that has kept oil from crashing down into the $30 range has been random inventory draws. These reports, though, are little more than a stop gap. Companies have been shifting crude to different facilities in order to create the illusion of inventory draws and higher demand. But usually within a week the reports catch up to the real supply and an inventory spike sends oil crashing down again.
Add to this the latest news that Congress has passed a bill allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government for their part in the attack, and you have a recipe for a dumping of the dollar as the world’s petrocurrency. Even if Obama vetoes the bill, I believe a two-thirds majority of congress will override that veto. A catastrophe in oil markets is inevitable.
Whether in oil markets or other sectors of finance and social stability, make no mistake, catastrophe is exactly what national governments are preparing for.
This is most obvious today in the European Union. The German government in their first revision of their civil defense plan since the cold war has warned the public to prepare for an unspecified event by stockpiling at least 10 days worth of food and five days worth of water. Germany is also debating the idea of placing troops on the streets to “protect against ISIS.”
And Germany is not alone. French presidential candidate Nickolas Sarkozy has made some highly disturbing statements on security in a recent interview, outlining measures he believes will best protect the public from “militants.” From Reuters:
France needs to get tough on militants by creating special courts and detention facilities to boost security, the country’s former President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a interview published in Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche.
“Every Frenchman suspected of being linked to terrorism, because he regularly consults a jihadist website, or his behavior shows signs of radicalization or because is in close contact with radicalized people, must by preventively placed in a detention center,” Sarkozy said in the interview.
Sarkozy, who announced last month his candidacy for the April 2017 presidential election, has said there is no place for “legal niceties” in the fight against terrorism.
Even in the face of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the concept of “detention facilities” where people are held without charge and without trial on the mere suspicion of being a danger to society should horrify anyone with any sense. The fact of the matter is, these violations of personal freedom and of due process are NEVER used for only one group of people. Totalitarian governments ALWAYS use one group as an excuse for the police state, then over time they expand the police state outwards to oppress everyone.
This is the kind of rhetoric that liberty movement activists in the U.S. fought against in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); but it is making a resurgence in Europe and in America as well. If you think Sarkozy is a marginal example, I recommend you re-watch this interview with Gen. Wesley Clark, who argues that “radicalized people” who are disloyal to the U.S. government should be placed in internment camps. He suggests that Britain, Germany and France need to take similar measures. It would appear that they are doing just that.
Never forget that “radicalism” is an arbitrary designation, and the label can be applied to just about anyone for any reason. A trend in police state language is growing in the mainstream in the name of fighting terrorism, but the abrupt urgency in Europe is rather odd. Only a few months ago, EU leaders were using some outrageous mental gymnastics in order to avoid confronting the notion of Islamic terrorism. Now, they are suddenly concerned? Why?
I believe Europe is about to witness a catalyst for financial crisis, and they are using terrorism as an excuse to preposition martial law resources before this event takes place. They don’t care about stopping ISIS, but they do care about locking down and controlling an angry citizenry in the wake of an economic downturn. If a few more terrorist attacks occur in the meantime, then hey, that only helps the elites in their efforts to pacify the public for the sake of “security.”
Official preparedness warnings from Germany, for example, are of little use to the public. A supply of a mere ten days of food and five days of water is useless during any sizable crisis. But, the German government can now say that they “tried to warn people.” Sarkozy’s statements are the most blatant call for a police state I have yet seen from an establishment puppet politician, and this should worry people. The fact that he is being so open and honest about the end game indicates to me that a dangerous shift is imminent.
It would appear, according to EU government behavior, that whatever is about to happen globally is going to hit hardest in Europe first and then spread to the U.S. and the rest of the world. I recommend readers watch the EU very carefully over the next few months. If you have any financial or survival preparations you have been putting off, I suggest you take care of them before the end of this year. From what I see so far, geopolitically and economically the global situation is only going to become more unstable in the near term.
- 1 In 5 CEOs Are "Successful Psychopaths"
"We hope to implement our screening tool in businesses so that there’s an adequate assessment to hopefully identify [these successful psychopaths] – to stop people sneaking through into positions in the business that can become very costly…"
That is the cunning plan of Australian psychologists following a study that found that about one in five corporate executives are psychopaths – roughly the same rate as among prisoners. As The Telegraph reports,
The study of 261 senior professionals in the United States found that 21 per cent had clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. The rate of psychopathy in the general population is about one in a hundred.
Nathan Brooks, a forensic psychologist who conducted the study, said the findings suggested that businesses should improve their recruitment screening.
He said recruiters tend to focus on skills rather than personality features and this has led to firms hiring “successful psychopaths” who may engage in unethical and illegal practices or have a toxic impact on colleagues.
“Typically psychopaths create a lot of chaos and generally tend to play people off against each other,” he said.
“For psychopaths, it [corporate success] is a game and they don’t mind if they violate morals. It is about getting where they want in the company and having dominance over others.”
The global financial crisis in 2008 has prompted researchers to study workplace traits that may have allowed a corporate culture in which unethical behaviour was able to flourish… ironic indeed as Wells Fargo CEO Stumpf blames 5300 of his employees for 'nasty' behavior and is unable to see any top-down ethical collapse as behind the systemic fraud.
To help CEOs "self-identify" as psychopaths, here is a quick test…
How to tell if your boss is psychopathic, Machiavellian, a narcissist or – even worse – all three.
For each character trait decide whether you strongly agree, agree, feel it applies sometimes, disagree or strongly disagree and give a score from 5 for strongly agree to 1 for strongly disagree.
The higher the score, the more they have combined psychopathic, Machiavellian and narcissistic tendencies.
1. They tend to exploit and trick others for self-advancement.
2. They have used lies and deception to get their way.
3. They have used ingratiation to get their way.
4. They tend to manipulate others for selfish reasons.
5. They tend not to feel regretful and apologetic after having done wrong.
6. They tend not to worry about whether their behaviour is ethical.
7. They tend to be lacking in empathy and crassly unaware of the distress they can cause others.
8. They tend to take a pretty dim view of humanity, attributing nasty motives and selfishness.
9. They tend to be hungry for admiration.
10. They tend to want to be the centre of attention.
11. They tend to aim for higher status and signs of their importance.
12. They tend to take it for granted that other people will make extra efforts to help them.
* Courtesy of Office Politics by Oliver James (Vermillion)
- Venezuela's "Death Spiral" – A Dozen Eggs Cost $150 As Hyperinflation Horrors Hit Socialist Utopia
Submitted by Susan Warner via The Gatestone Institute,
- The question of whether Socialism can be an effective economic system was famously raised when Margaret Thatcher said of the British Labor Party, "I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything."
- There are dire reports of people waiting in supermarket lines all day, only to discover that expected food deliveries never arrived and the shelves are empty.
- There are horrific tales of desperate people slaughtering zoo animals to provide their only meal of the day. Even household pets are targeted as a much-needed source for food.
- President Maduro is doubling down on the proven failed policies and philosophies of "Bolivarian Socialism," while diverting attention away from the crisis — pointing fingers at so-called "enemies" of Venezuela such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and others.
- A dozen eggs was last reported to cost $150, and the International Monetary Fund "predicts that inflation in Venezuela will hit 720% this year.
For many Venezuelans, by every economic, social and political measure, their nation is unravelling at breakneck speed.
Severe shortages of food, clean water, electricity, medicines and hospital supplies punctuate a dire scenario of crime-ridden streets in the impoverished neighborhoods of this nearly failed OPEC state, which at one time claimed to be the most prosperous nation in Latin America.
Today, a once comfortable middle-class Venezuelan father is scrambling desperately to find his family's next meal — sometimes hunting through garbage for salvageable food. The unfortunate 75% majority of Venezuelans already suffering extreme poverty are reportedly verging on starvation.
Darkness is falling on Hugo Chavez's once-famous "Bolivarian revolution" that some policy experts, only a short time ago, thought would never end.
In a 2007 study on the Chavez years for the Washington, DC-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval wrote:
"[a]t present it does not appear that the current economic expansion is about to end any time in the near future. The gains in poverty reduction, employment, education and health care that have occurred in the last few years are likely to continue along with the expansion."
While it was not so long ago that many people heralded Venezuela as Latin America's successful utopian Socialist experiment, something has gone dreadfully wrong as the revolution's Marxist founder, Hugo Chavez, turned his Chavismo dream into an economic nightmare of unimaginable proportions.
The question of whether Socialism can be an effective economic system was famously raised when Margaret Thatcher said of the British Labor Party:
"I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means."
In short: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
When President Nicolas Maduro inherited the Venezuelan Socialist "dream", in April of 2013, just one month after Chavez died, he was facing a mere 53% inflation rate. Today the Venezuelan bolivar is virtually worthless, and inflation is creeping to 500% with expectations of much more. A recent Washington Post report stated:
" …markets expect Venezuela to default on its debt in the very near future. The country is basically bankrupt. It is not easy for a nation to go bankrupt with the largest oil reserves in the world, but Venezuela has managed it. How? Well, a combination of bad luck and worse policies. The first step was when Hugo Chávez's socialist government started spending more money on the poor, with everything from two-cent gasoline to free housing. That may all seem like it's a good idea in general — but only as long as there's money to spend. And by 2005 or so, Venezuela didn't have any."
Chavez had the good fortune to die just before the grim reaper showed up on Venezuela's doorstep. According to policy specialist Jose Cardenas:
"What began as a war against the 'squalid' oligarchy in order to build what he called '21st-century socialism' — cheered on as he was by many leftists from abroad — has collapsed into an unprecedented heap of misery and conflict."
Maduro is doubling down on the failed Chavismo economic and social policies that have contributed to an inflationary crisis not seen since the days of the 1920's Weimar Republic in Germany, when the cost of a loaf of bread was a wheelbarrow full of cash.
Demonstrations and public cries for food are the unpleasant evidence of a once-prosperous society being torn apart by the very largess that marked its utopian ideals less than a decade ago.
There are dire reports of people waiting in supermarket lines all day, only to discover that expected food deliveries never arrived and the shelves are empty.
In desperation, some middle class families have organized online barter clubs as helpless citizens seek to trade anything for diapers and baby food, powdered milk, medicines, toilet paper and other essentials missing from store shelves or available only on the black market for double and triple already impossibly inflated prices..
There are horrific tales of desperate people slaughtering zoo animals to provide their only meal of the day. Even household pets are targeted as a much-needed source for food. This is a desperate time for a desperate people.
As things continue to worsen, President Maduro, unfortunately, is doubling down on the proven failed policies and philosophies of "Bolivarian Socialism," while diverting attention away from the crisis — pointing fingers at so-called "enemies" of Venezuela such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and others.
Efforts to convince Maduro to enlist help from outside have failed, according to a report in the Catholic magazine, Crux:
Maduro has refused to accept help from international charitable organizations, including the Vatican-sponsored Caritas Internationalis, which through different affiliates has tried to send medicine and food.
"Denying that there's a crisis and refusing to let the world send medicine and food is not possible," said Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino, archbishop of Caracas.
The prelate believes that Maduro is refusing to accept help in an attempt to hide the "very grave situation of total shortage," which far from improving, he said, continues to deteriorate.
"The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference, the organization of the nation's Catholic bishops, issued a scathing statement condemning president Maduro for giving the military full control of the nation's food supply, accusing him of being at the helm of a devastating "moral crisis" and crippling every aspect of life in Venezuela."
In what some economists have been calling a "death spiral", the government's failed economic policies are at the same time causing and trying to stem a runaway inflation with price-fixing policies which, in turn, are triggering shortages. Maduro is strongly urging businesses and farmers to sell their goods at severe losses, forcing shut-downs when the cost of doing business becomes prohibitive.
According to a recent Bloomberg report, the black market is thriving because goods are unavailable at prices fixed by the government. There are reports of ordinary people quitting inadequate-paying jobs to set up black market operations, hoping to be able to make enough to sustain life.
A dozen eggs was last reported to cost $150, and the International Monetary Fund "predicts that inflation in Venezuela will hit 720% this year. That might be an optimistic assessment, according to some local economic analysts, who expect the rate to reach as high as 1,200%."
According to a Bloomberg report from April:
"In a tale that highlights the chaos of unbridled inflation, Venezuela is scrambling to print new bills fast enough to keep up with the torrid pace of price increases. Most of the cash, like nearly everything else in the oil-exporting country, is imported. And with hard currency reserves sinking to critically low levels, the central bank is doling out payments so slowly to foreign providers that they are foregoing further business.
"Venezuela, in other words, is now so broke that it may not have enough money to pay for its money."
In the midst of this galloping cataclysm, there is no shortage of pundits who simplistically assert that the catastrophe is caused solely by the international collapse of oil prices. However, according to Justin Fox at Bloomberg:
"The divergence between Venezuela's revenue and spending started long before (the 2014) oil-price collapse. When oil prices hit their all-time high in July 2008, government revenue — 40 percent of which comes directly from oil — was already falling. The main problem was Venezuelan oil production, which dropped from 3.3 million barrels a day in 2006 to 2.7 million in 2011. It was still at 2.7 million in 2014, according to the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy."
"Venezuela isn't running out of oil. Its proven reserves have skyrocketed since 2000 as geologists have learned more about the heavy crude of the Orinoco Belt. But getting at that oil will take a lot of resources and expertise, both things that Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA, best known in the U.S. for its Citgo subsidiary), has been lacking in since Chavez initiated a sort of hostile takeover starting in the early 2000s. First he kicked out 18,000 workers and executives, 40 percent of the company's workforce, after a strike. Then he started demanding control of PDVSA's joint ventures with foreign oil companies. One could interpret this in the most Chavez-friendly way possible — he was aiming for a more just allocation of his nation's resources — and still conclude that he made it harder for PDVSA to deliver the necessary tax revenue."
Cronyism and corruption prevailed under Chavez when oil was selling at almost $200 a barrel — at a time when Venezuela could have put some money away for the inevitable rainy day. But President Hugo Chavez and successor president Maduro, were busy buying votes and consolidating power with free giveaways, according to Michael Klare in The Nation.
Behind the doom and gloom Venezuela's collapse is the continuing specter of street crime and murder, according to Time.com in a May 2016 report:
"The country's runaway murder rate is just one of the factors driving opposition to President Nicolas Maduro in a country where shortages of food and basic goods are chronic, inflation is running rampant and the government is jailing political prisoners. But it serves as a bloody illustration of just how close to outright societal collapse Venezuela has come since the end of the 20th century, as gangs, guerrillas and militia defend their turfs and traditional authority structures fall by the wayside."
Venezuela's crime rate is one of the highest in the world. Called the world's most homicidal nation, Venezuela has more than street crime, thuggery and murder. Drug cartels, black marketeers, narcoterrorists, white collar criminals and money launderers are unfortunate hallmarks of the Chavez/Maduro legacy.
The ruin of this once prosperous, oil-rich nation might be a harbinger for other nations, such as the United States, which may be tempted into believing that Socialist giveaway policies actually can provide the promise of a free lunch for longer than the next election cycle. Or might that be all many politicians need or want?
Venezuela's food shortages, hyperinflation, black marketeers, narcoterrorists and money launderers are unfortunate hallmarks of the legacy of Presidents Chavez (left) and Maduro (right).
- More Akin To Goebbels
Authored by T.L. Davis, via Christian Mercenary blog,
The best thing that could happen during this presidential election is happening. Once and for all, the press is being outed as the traitorous bunch of clowns we have always known they were. Their absolute devotion to anyone not named Trump is driving them into increasingly ridiculous and contemptible positions concerning Hillary Clinton, her crimes and her rapidly declining health. Their only hope is to push the corpse across the finish line of the election and rally around Tim Kaine.
But, millenials are, for all of the bad press about their addiction to video games and their devotion to smoking dope, are growing concerned that the emperoress has no clothes, despite the fawning description of the beautiful attire. Never before has reality so closely reflected a fairy tale as the blind, deaf and dumb press corps accommodatingly ignoring the obvious flaws of a pre-ordained head of state. There is always an excuse for a Clinton, always a nuanced explanation that is offered and eagerly consumed by the press.
It depends on what the definition of "heat" is.
The crux of the issue is that the "press" has been given special privileges through our Constitution to allow it to say anything, to print anything they believe is true. Unfortunately, it does not bind them to reporting what they believe is a lie. This goes to the heart of our Republic and their willing cooperation with a given political party is nothing other than traitorous. Information that they are Constitutionally protected to reveal is being withheld, shielded from the public, information that is necessary for the Republic to function.
They either do not realize, or care (either is just as damning as the other) that their political affiliation is being exposed and that they are willing to submit the nation to any degree of poor judgment, criminal activity, or outright corruption in order to secure the election of "one of their own."
This is not being lost on the Millennials, who do not remember the clout with which Cronkite made his nightly propaganda pitches. They do not remember the reverence with which Edward R. Murrow broadcast his missives. They are the product of internet information and hold most of our most honored traditions in contempt. This is the first time they have been able to view the clannish behavior of an outdated "press corps" that does not seem to have a valid function in their eyes. A tweet is more important than a network broadcast. The media has just dropped trou in front of them and they are taking notice.
Unfortunately, they do not understand or appreciate that there is a Constitutional question here. Given the extraordinary access a "free press" has been given to the president, members of congress and the judiciary, it is all designed to allow the people, the voters, the ones who actually decide who the office holders will be, information that could not be gained individually. It is their duty to provide the voters with information that might make a candidate unsuitable to hold office; to expose lies and report the truth, regardless of who the other contender for the office might be. The press is, right now, acting as voters, as imposing themselves into the election and making a determination for the rest of society. That is not their Constitutional role and despite the great contempt the Constitution seems to evoke among these "elites," it is still a duty, a responsibility, to reveal the flaws and inadequacies of any given candidate for any given office from dog catcher to president and while they fully understand their responsibility when it comes to Trump, they seem at a complete loss when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
I personally am not all that interested in this election; it is a disgrace, a disappointment to consider either candidate as the best we have to offer; as serious representatives of the American people, but that is not my call and I recognize it. I believe the American people are as disserved by these candidates as they are disserved by the people reporting on the election.
If there is anything to be said about any of it, it is that we always get what we deserve and our lack of principle, our lack of interest in the political process has led to this debacle. We are the laughing stock of the world and deservedly so.
The only part of it that I do care about is that our Constitution was written with the intellectual understanding of this possibility: that clowns and criminals might be foisted upon us in the dark of political maneuvers and that the founders, the drafters of the document that brought forth this nation, saw only the "free press" as an antidote to this particular governmental ill and that those entrusted with that responsibility have obliterated their own credibility, voluntarily suspended critical thinking in order to produce a political outcome more suited to their political beliefs.
What is worse, is that they, with all of their supposed political understanding and knowledge of world history either do not realize, or care, that their actions are identical to those of cheap propagandists more akin to Joseph Goebbels than Edward R. Murrow.
- Ford Announces Plan To Shift All Small-Car Production To Mexico
Earlier today Ford announced that it expects operating income to decline in 2017 as the automaker increases investment in electric and autonomous vehicles, before rising again in 2018. This news came after Ford had just lowered it’s expectations for FY 2016 EBIT to $10.2BN from $10.8BN due to increasing costs associated with an expanded recall related to faulty door latches.
So how do you offset rising costs and a top-line that executives recently admitted have “reached a plateau?” Well you shift more production to low-cost countries, like Mexico of course. According to Reuters, Ford CEO, Mark Fields, confirmed at the company’s investor day today that all of Ford’s small-car production would be shifted to Mexico over the next 2-3 years.
“We will have migrated all of our small-car production to Mexico and out of the United States,” over the next two to three years, Fields told Wall Street analysts at an investor conference hosted by the automaker.
As we wrote about a month ago, Ford is scheduled to open a brand new $1.6 billion plant in Mexico in 2018. The plant will employee roughly 2,800 workers who will be paid $1.15 – $2.30 per hour which is a mere 97% less that the $70 per hour all-in cost of an United Auto Worker employee performing the same labor in Detroit. The move is expected to yield savings of $1,300 per vehicle relative to production costs in Detroit. Per the Wall Street Journal:
Ford is scheduled to open a new $1.6 billion small-car assembly factory in San Luis Potosí in 2018 and hire 2,800 workers. People familiar with the matter say Ford will produce its Focus there, which is currently built in Michigan.
A contract reviewed by The Wall Street Journal puts factory wages at the facility at about $1.15 to $2.30 per hour, on par with what other auto-assembly plants currently pay in the region. The move to Mexico will yield cost savings of about $1,300 per vehicle, or about $300 million a year, according to manufacturing experts familiar with the Detroit car maker’s finances.
As we’ve said before, supporters of minimum wage hikes could learn from the efforts of the United Auto Workers Union which did a masterful job negotiating off-market wage and benefits packages which have ultimately only served to provide their members with permanent job losses.
- Not Everyone Went Down With The Titanic
Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,
It’s one of the most dangerous myths most people believe…
Boobus Americanus thinks cash he deposits into a bank is a personal asset he owns.
But that’s not true.
Once a deposit is made at the bank, it’s no longer your property. It’s the bank’s.
What you own instead is a promise from the bank to repay. It’s an unsecured liability. That’s a very different thing from owning physical cash stuffed under your mattress. Yet, 99.9% of people conflate the two.
Cash deposited into the bank technically makes you a creditor of the bank. You’re liable to get burned should the bank make a bad bet and get into trouble. The risk is not insignificant. Most banks gamble with their customer deposits on risky investment fads like mortgage-backed securities.
Government deposit insurance schemes are a false sense of security. With their current reserves, they could only cover less than half a penny for every dollar they supposedly insure.
People in Cyprus had to find all this out the hard way a few years ago. People awoke on an otherwise normal Saturday morning to the horror that the cash in their bank accounts had vanished.
It was perhaps the most potent, recent example of the risk of being totally dependent on a single country that suddenly found itself in financial trouble. It also shows why I am such a fan of owning hard assets outside the immediate reach of your government.
You probably already know it’s a bad idea to put all of your asset eggs in one investment basket. The same goes for holding all of your assets in one country. But how much thought have you put into political diversification?
International diversification frees you from absolute dependence on any one country. Achieve that freedom, and it becomes very difficult for any group of bureaucrats to control you. The results can be life changing.
While everyone in the world should aim for political diversification, it’s exponentially more critical for those who live under a government sinking hopelessly deeper into financial trouble. That means most Western governments and the U.S., in particular.
This brings up an uncomfortable truth for North Americans and Europeans. The way the political and economic winds are blowing, things are about to get much worse.
Central banks around the globe have created the biggest financial bubble the world has ever seen. Interest rates are the lowest they’ve ever been in 5,000 years of recorded history. In some parts of the world, they’re even negative. We’re living in a financial Alice in Wonderland.
I think the social and political implications of this bubble bursting are even more dangerous than the financial consequences.
An economic depression and currency inflation (perhaps hyperinflation) are very much in the cards. These things rarely lead to anything but bigger government, less freedom, and shrinking prosperity. Sometimes, they lead to much worse.
We’re already getting a small preview of what is to come…
It seems like each week, there’s a new attack or mass shooting. Racial tensions are on the rise. Europe is experiencing a migrant crisis that’s tearing the continent apart.
There’s no doubt the world has become a crazier place in the past couple of years. Unfortunately, I think it is only going to get worse…
There’s really only one way to remove yourself from all of this unpleasantness.
- As Vancouver Luxury Home Sales Plunge 65%, Chinese Buyers Move To Toronto
If there was any doubt about the Vancouver housing bubble bursting, and there really should not have been after our latest update, when we showed 2 weeks ago that the average price of detached Vancouver properties crashed, dropping 17% on the month, and 0.6% on the year, to C$1.47 million ($1.13 million) in August, the lowest price since September 2015…
… it can be fully laid to rest, with the latest data from Sotheby’s International Realty according to which transactions in Vancouver of at least C$1 million ($759,000) plunged 65% from a year earlier to a paltry 95 units in August, the month that a 15% real estate tax on deals by non-Canadian homebuyers took effect.
In Vancouver, the tax “injected uncertainty into the market, and is anticipated to moderate sales activity and velocity in the fall,” the brokerage said. The long-term impact of the surcharge remains to be seen and the city remains in an affordability crisis, according to Bloomberg.
The tax hit Vancouver’s condominium market hardest. Sales of at least C$1 million dropped 49% in August from a year earlier, after rising 29% in 12 months through July. There were no deals for condos priced at C$4 million or more last month, compared with four in August 2015. Sales of Vancouver’s most expensive homes, those priced at C$4 million or higher, fell 46% in August to 14 units, Sotheby’s said.
However, while the Vancouver housing bubble has now popped, the ravenous Chinese buyers, far from hightailing it out of Canada, have merely decided to shift to Toronto, because at the same time as Vancouver’s real estate sales ground to a halt, luxury-home sales in Toronto and its suburbs doubled to 1,459 units, Sotheby’s said.
According to the Star, sales of $1-million-plus Toronto-area single-family homes rose 83% year over year in July and August. That’s 3,026 homes, with 55 per cent of them inside Toronto’s borders.
That’s not entirely surprising given that the average cost of a detached home in Toronto was about $1.2 million, said Sotheby’s CEO Brad Henderson.
“While $1 million is still a considerable amount of money, it’s difficult to find a single-family home in the city of Toronto for less than $1 million and it is not uncommon to find homes in the $2-million, $3-million or even $4-million-plus range,” he said.
Sotheby’s says sales of homes in the $4-million-and-up category rose 74 per cent in the region and 58 per cent in the city in July and August. Sotheby’s said it expects Toronto’s luxury market to take the lead among Canada’s cities, outpacing Montreal, which probably will become a target for investors from Europe, China and the Middle East.
“What the (Vancouver) tax introduced is . . . some uncertainty as to what other policy issues the city or the province may introduce, which would adversely affect investors,” Henderson said, adding that investors are looking elsewhere, including cities outside Canada.
“But, if they are looking in Canada, we believe Toronto will be the most logical place for people to consider. Montreal and Calgary will probably also get a look-see,” Henderson said.
The good news for Vancouver is that there is finally hope the housing market will soon regain some rationality: Sotheby’s report forecasts a “more normalized fall market” in Vancouver, based on summer sales there. Others had more harsh words: on Tuesday, the chief economist and strategist at National Bank of Canada predicted Vancouver’s housing market may enter a correction with price declines of at least 10%.
The bad news is that the Vancouver housing nightmare of the past two years has metastasized to Toronto (to start) and anyone seeking to buy a house there will soon be priced out by Chinese money-launderers. 10% of homes sold in the Toronto region in the first six months of 2016 were $1 million or more, according to Sotheby’s. Sales over $4 million comprised less than .05 per cent of the total transactions, according to Sotheby’s. That number will soon go up fast.
We give Toronto between 9 and 12 months before the locals wake up in horror and realize that they are now the new favorite parking spot for illegally obtained Chinese cash, and demand a similar 15% tax on foreign purchases, which will simply shift the roving Chinese horde of homebuyers to yet another city, because with $30 trillion in Chinese deposits, the supply of cash is virtually endless, especially when the Chinese population knows that the next devaluation is just around the corner, no matter how hard the PBOC wants to fight it.
- Desperately Poor Teens In America's Impoverished Inner Cities Are Trading Sex For Food
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
When people get hungry enough, they will do just about anything for some food. According to brand new research that was just released this week from Feeding America and the Urban Institute, there are millions of teenagers in America that live in “food insecure” households, and researchers were stunned to learn what some of these teens are willing to do to feed themselves. Some resort to shoplifting, others deal drugs, and there were a surprising number of participants in the study that actually admitted to trading sex for food. It wouldn’t be a shock to hear that these kinds of things are going on in an economically-depressed nation such as Venezuela, but this is the United States of America. We are supposed to be the wealthiest nation on the entire planet. Sadly, even while the stock market has been soaring in recent years, poverty in America has been on the rise. For those on the low end of the economic scale, things have gone from bad to worse since the end of the last recession, and millions of children are deeply suffering as a result.
Let’s start with some of the hard numbers. The following comes directly from the Urban Institute website…
An estimated 6.8 million people ages 10 to 17 are food insecure, meaning they don’t have reliable access to enough affordable, nutritious food. Another 2.9 million are very food insecure, and roughly 4 million live in marginally food secure households, where the threat of running out of food is real.
Food insecurity takes a tremendous toll on teenagers. Poor nutrition—and the stress of hunger and poverty—can jeopardize their physical and mental health and development and their academic success. But despite the gravity and prevalence of teen food insecurity, we know very little about how these young people experience and cope with hunger.
The researchers already knew that lots of young people were hungry in America. But what surprised them were the lengths that many of these youngsters said that they would go to in order to get food…
Some of the youths said they or someone they know — mostly young men — have turned to shoplifting food, selling drugs or stealing items to sell.
The teens also reported knowing young women who have sold their bodies for food or had sex for money so they could buy food for their families.
Going to jail or failing a class in order to have to attend summer school were also some of the lengths teens went to.
Could you imagine your daughter or your granddaughter exchanging her body for food?
For most of us that is absolutely unthinkable, but the truth is that this is taking place on the streets of America every single day.
And this wasn’t just some blind random phone survey. The researchers conducted personal interviews with focus groups, and what these kids were willing to admit doing was absolutely astounding. Here is another excerpt directly out of the report…
- When faced with acute food insecurity, teens in all but two of the communities said that youth engage in criminal behavior, ranging from shoplifting food directly to selling drugs and stealing items to resell for cash. These behaviors were most common among young men in communities with the most limited job options.
- Teens in all 10 communities and in 13 of the 20 focus groups talked about some youth selling sex for money to pay for food. These themes arose most strongly in high-poverty communities where teens also described sexually coercive environments. Sexual exploitation most commonly took the form of transactional dating relationships with older adults.
- In a few communities, teens talked about going to jail or failing school (so they could attend summer classes and get school lunch) as viable strategies for ensuring regular meals.
Many of these young people understand that what they are doing is wrong. Just consider what some of them told the researchers…
A girl in Portland, Oregon told researchers: “It’s really like selling yourself. Like you’ll do whatever you need to do to get money or eat.”
Another comment from Portland: “You’re not even dating … they’ll be like … ‘I don’t really love him, but I’m going to do what I have to do.’”
Many prefer to rationalise what they are doing as dating of sorts. A boy in rural North Carolina said: “When you’re selling your body, it’s more in disguise. Like if I had sex with you, you have to buy me dinner tonight … that’s how girls deal with the struggle … That’s better than taking money because if they take money, they will be labeled a prostitute.”
When I read the information in this report, I was stunned. Yes, I write about our economic decline and the rise in poverty all the time, but I didn’t know that things were this bad.
And the researchers were surprised by what they were hearing as well. One of them said that the fact that girls are trading their bodies for food “was really shocking to me”, and she believes that things are “just getting worse over time”…
“I’ve been doing research in low-income communities for a long time, and I’ve written extensively about the experiences of women in high poverty communities and the risk of sexual exploitation, but this was new,” said Susan Popkin, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and lead author of the report, Impossible Choices.
“Even for me, who has been paying attention to this and has heard women tell their stories for a long time, the extent to which we were hearing about food being related to this vulnerability was new and shocking to me, and the level of desperation that it implies was really shocking to me. It’s a situation I think is just getting worse over time.”
But aren’t we being told that things are getting better?
Aren’t we being told that our leaders “fixed” the economy?
Of course the truth is that America is mired in a long-term economic decline that stretches back for decades. With each passing year the middle class gets smaller as a percentage of the population, and poverty continues to grow. Last year the middle class became a minority of the population for the first time ever, and a lot of formerly middle class Americans are now among those that aren’t sure that they are going to have enough food to eat this month.
Hunger in America is a major crisis and it is growing. Just because you may live in a comfortable home in a wealthy neighborhood does not mean that this problem is not real.
Tonight there are millions of Americans that do not know where their next meal is going to come from, and they deserve our love and compassion.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...