- RFK Jr: The Wuhan Cover-Up & The Rise Of The Biowarfare-Industrial Complex
RFK Jr: The Wuhan Cover-Up & The Rise Of The Biowarfare-Industrial Complex
Authored by Debbie Lerman via The Brownstone Institute,
The Wuhan Cover-Up and the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race (Skyhorse Publishing, December 3, 2023) is a crucial book for understanding how the Covid catastrophe happened.
I would even go so far as to argue that RFK, Jr.’s new book is the most important Covid chronicle to date, although it ends at the beginning of 2020, before most of us were even aware that a “novel coronavirus” was circulating among us.
The book explains the CAUSES of the global disaster, which all happened before March 2020. Everything after that are the downstream EFFECTS of what The Wuhan Cover-Up exposes.
Here’s how RFK, Jr. summarizes those effects:
Everyone has now seen that pandemics are another way for the military, intelligence, and public health services to expand their budgets and their power. In 2020, public health, defense, and intelligence agencies weaponized a [Covid-19] pandemic, resulting in unprecedented profits to Big Pharma and the dramatic expansion of the security/surveillance state, including a systemic abandonment of constitutional rights—effectively a coup d’état against liberal democracy globally.
(Kindle edition, p. 385)
Putting Covid in the Biowarfare Context
Interestingly, in the publicity blurb on the book and in interviews about it, RFK, Jr. focuses on “the etiology of the gain-of-function research” and everything that led up to a virus being engineered in a US-funded lab in Wuhan by a group of Chinese and Western scientists.
At the core of this story is RFK, Jr.’s desire to warn readers about the dangers of gain-of-function research, which he shows in the book to be irrefutably a biowarfare – not a public health – endeavor.
But in the process of constructing the argument and supplying the proof for his dire warning, and for his assertion that this type of research should be stopped immediately and forever, RFK, Jr. provides what I find to be an even more compelling story.
The story in the Wuhan Cover-Up that interests me is the rise of the biowarfare-industrial-complex – the global behemoth comprising military/intelligence alliances, Big Pharma, Big Tech, academic and medical institutions, and NGOs – that both created the virus known as SARS-CoV-2 and ran the global response to it.
In this article, I will highlight key parts of The Wuhan Cover-Up that pertain to this storyline – which I believe are downplayed in its publicity materials and are one of the main reasons it has been practically banned from polite society: The book has been so heavily censored that I cannot find a single actual review on Google. Newsweek reported that independent bookstores do not want to carry it.
A lot of the censorship has to do with mainstream animosity toward RFK, Jr’s presidential campaign. But the explosive content of the book, as reviewed in this article, is also likely a factor.
Top-Level Summary of the Rise of the Biowarfare Industrial Complex, as Told by RFK, Jr.
-
The biowarfare industry started to grow after WWII, when Western intelligence agencies imported Japanese and German scientists to help develop weapons against Communist enemies. This was, in fact, the first task of the newly formed CIA.
-
After 9/11, funding for bioweapons research exploded, and so did the power and reach of the military and intelligence agencies in charge of such research. The research, presented to the public as “pandemic preparedness and response (PPR),” encompassed mostly attempts to engineer deadly pathogens and simultaneously to create countermeasures to them, predominantly vaccines.
-
So much money was pouring into PPR/bioweapons research that the public health agencies and academic institutions involved in government research all became dependent on it – or, perhaps more accurately, addicted to the money and power this type of research bestowed. Multinational public-private partnerships and “non-governmental organizations” (e.g., The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Wellcome Trust) were created to fund and promote the need for such research.
-
In the fall of 2019 an engineered pathogen from one of the bioweapons labs in China found its way into the population. All the military, intelligence, and public health officials from China, the US, UK, and other countries, with their pharma and academic partners, conspired to cover up the lab leak, while simultaneously preparing to unleash their countermeasures on the world.
How the Nature of Biowarfare Research Has Not Changed
As RFK, Jr. tells it, the history of today’s biowarfare industry starts after WWII, when German and Japanese scientists were secretly repatriated to assist the intelligence community and military in developing chemical and biological weapons programs.
It is no coincidence, he argues, that many sinister features of those earlier programs carried forward to the present. These features include:
-
tight alliances with the pharmaceutical industry and the media;
-
the complicity of academia and medical schools;
-
the co-opting of journals;
-
intense secrecy;
-
pervasive experimentation on human subjects;
-
liberal use of the word “volunteers;”
-
open-air testing on large unwilling populations;
-
ethical elasticity;
-
the normalization of lies;
-
the use of microbiology to alter and weaponize bugs;
-
the use of vaccine development as a mask for bioweapons research;
-
the corruption of the entire medical establishment
(p. 48)
Even just this list is enough to explain what happened with Covid: Take all these ingredients, add billions of dollars and multinational public-private partnerships involving top research institutions and thousands of scientists, and how could you not get a global disaster?
Deep CIA-Biowarfare Ties
The Wuhan Cover-Up spends a lot of time documenting the correspondence between the rise of the CIA and the emergence of the modern biowarfare program.
RFK, Jr. writes:
…it’s worth reviewing the agency’s seventy-five-year preoccupation with bioweapons, pandemics, and vaccines. Bioweapons development was the CIA’s first love, and has remained its relentless passion. The CIA’s natal obsession with bioweapons pitted the agency against all the idealistic underpinnings of both American democracy and the healing arts of medicine.
(p. 46)
An important related point emphasized in the book is that bioweapons research is not an obscure, niche industry. Rather, according to The Wuhan Cover-Up, it is a top national defense concern, driving the national security agenda:
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the military and intelligence apparatus erected the biosecurity agenda as the new spear tip of American foreign policy. These agencies deftly replaced the fear of the Soviet monolith and creeping communism with a fear of infectious disease, which they have successfully stoked to justify vast expansions in power…
(p. 44)
Shockingly Broad Participation by Academics and Scientists
Because the biosecurity agenda – which focuses on biochemical and medical research – is so central to foreign policy and national security, it controls large swaths of research funding. Thus, as RFK, Jr. documents, it has come to encompass many top academic institutions and thousands of doctors and scientists:
Among the most alarming side effects of the federal preoccupation with bioweapons has been the systematic diversion of vast resources and armies of academic and government scientists away from public health and healing.
(p. 46)
Today, some thirteen thousand death scientists labor on bioweapons technology on behalf of US military, intelligence, and public health agencies in some four hundred government and university bioweapons labs.
(p. 83)
Moral Bankruptcy
When faced with Covid “conspiracy theories” – such as those put forth in The Wuhan Cover-Up – people often argue that so many doctors and scientists could not possibly have knowingly agreed to civilization-killing ideas like lockdowns and injections of unsafe medical products into billions of people. They must have believed they were actually saving humanity, right?
Wrong, according to RFK, Jr.:
History has shown again and again the bioweapons agenda’s awesome power to transform compassionate, brilliant, idealistic doctors into monsters.
(p. 47)
They have, as a class, demonstrated thoroughly warped judgment and a reliable penchant for dishonesty and terrible ideas.
(p. 87)
Bioweapons Research = Vaccine Research
Another crucial idea bearing on our understanding of the Covid response is that vaccine research is a primary concern for the biowarfare-industrial complex, although it is publicly presented as a public health endeavor.
The book quotes Professor Frances Boyle, author of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, with this explanation:
You can’t use a bioweapon against your enemy without having in your possession an antidote with which to shield your own team from blowback. For this reason, bioweapons and vaccines are always developed in tandem with each other.
(p. 121)
Moreover, because vaccine research funding goes to both biodefense and public health agencies, they have become inextricably linked:
The military and public health agencies work in close coordination to develop vaccines for military applications, sharing information and working side by side in labs. Vaccine research often serves as a cover or rationale for illegal bioweapons development.
(p. 129)
From an Obsession of US National Security to a Tool of Globalism
As RFK, Jr. writes, after 9/11, Islamic terrorism became the focus of US national defense. After the anthrax attacks, the focus of antiterrorist activities coalesced around the need to predict, prevent, and create countermeasures to biological terrorism.
This more reliable and terrifying enemy would soon replace the war against Islamic terror—justifying a “forever war” against germs. “Biosecurity,” a.k.a. Pandemic Preparedness and Response (PPR), provided a rationale for US presence in every developing nation.
(p. 149)
And, as further explained by RFK, Jr., the focus on bioterrorism, which first served the American imperialist impulse, then became incorporated into the program of globalism:
The emerging medical/military-industrial complex would soon be citing biosecurity as a pretext for centralized control, coordinated response among nations, a sprawling construction project for new US bioweapons laboratories, the archiving of every germ with weapons potential under the pretext of pandemic protection, the control of the media, the imposition of censorship, the erection of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure ostensibly needed to “track and trace” infections, universal digital IDs, digital currencies to reduce disease spread, and the ceding of power by national governments to the WHO—in short, globalism.
(p. 149)
China Becomes a Dominant Biowarfare Research Player
Concurrently, China’s leaders were working on a mission to make China a world leader in science, research, and innovation. According to The Wuhan Cover-Up, the Chinese have been using the West’s march toward globalism to infiltrate “Western academia, businesses, media, cultural groups, and government agencies that speak the language of cooperation, globalism, and public health.” (p. 257)
As part of their infiltration process, the Chinese lavished funding on Western research institutions and scientific publishing houses. And because biomedical/biowarfare research was so central to Western governments and research institutions, the Chinese were able to eventually dominate that space as well.
Thus, the book explains, China was able to “co-opt US academic institutions and US public health agencies into performing backdoor bioweapons research for the Chinese military.” (p. 274)
Why Would the US Do Bioweapons Research in/for China?
This is, perhaps, the most oft-raised question in response to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered bioweapon from a lab funded by the Chinese military, the US, and other Western governments.
As RFK, Jr. explains, with the Chinese as major funders of Western institutions, journals and projects related to biomedical research, this strange collaboration was not just unsurprising, but in fact, inevitable:
The Chinese campaign to co-opt leading scientists and the river of Chinese funding to researchers at US and British medical research universities and to the leading scientific journals had, by then, bought China powerful friends across the Western scientific establishment.
(p. 280)
Furthermore, the interests of China intersect with the interests of major global corporations and NGOs that comprise the biowarfare-industrial-complex – many of which enriched themselves considerably through the Covid response. As RFK, Jr. writes:
There is a natural intersection of interests between Western business titans and a former communist government [the Chinese Communist Party] that has made itself the global model for seamlessly merging corporate with government power, and promoting business growth by suppressing democracy, labor, and human rights.
(p. 572)
For its part, the US intelligence community has all kinds of reasons – all ultimately geared toward increasing its own power and influence – to engage in sensitive scientific research projects with the Chinese:
The deliberate transfer of our superior bioweapons knowledge to the Chinese—a potential enemy—makes little sense to citizens who think in terms of conventional rivalries between nations. Espionage was clearly among the complex motivations for the US intelligence community supporting Chinese bioweapons research in China. Knowing what the Chinese are up to is the mission of the US intelligence community. But quietly sharing cutting-edge technologies may also serve institutional self-interest. After all, the intelligence community expands its power by reporting the enemy’s expanding capabilities; more frightening capabilities abroad justify increased budgets and increased power at home.
(p. 388)
Bioweapons expert Dr. Francis Boyle is quoted stating that:
Opportunities to expand institutional power and corporate profits always seem to trump patriotism and duty within the CIA’s bioweapons teams. Patriotism is a polite fiction among the bioweapons set.
(p. 383)
RFK, Jr. adds that the public health agencies, which are heavily involved in, and funded by, biowarfare research, share the CIA’s self-interested non-patriotism:
NIH and NIAID operate under the same perverse incentives that drive destructive conduct across the whole bioweapons field.
(p. 383)
A Convergence of Personal, Political, Financial and Global Interests
In the final chapters of The Wuhan Cover-Up, RFK, Jr. focuses on several key figures in the biowarfare-industrial-complex, including Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust (now at the WHO), Anthony Fauci of the NIH, and Bill Gates.
RFK, Jr. uses these figures to show how the Covid pandemic emerged from the toxic stew of ethically compromised biowarfare research standards; military, intelligence, public health, and academic institutions/organizations dependent on biowarfare funding; the involvement of China and global interests in the booming business of “pandemic preparedness and response;” and, of course, the endless pursuit of political power and personal enrichment.
Here’s a great summary of how they all came together, through personal and institutional greed and power-mongering, to unleash the Covid catastrophe on the world:
The evidence suggests that instead of relentlessly protecting public health, Farrar exploited the pandemic to promote the venal financial agendas of his WEF [World Economic Forum] patrons, to transform Western democracies into surveillance states, to expand his personal power and paycheck, and to pander to high-level Chinese officials. Achieving these objectives required Farrar to hide [Covid’s] laboratory origins, a project in which he enlisted a cadre of his medical cartel cronies—those who, thanks to years of funding by Fauci, Farrar, and Gates, now occupy the highest echelons of virology in academia, the regulatory agencies, and pharmaceutical companies.
(p. 539)
If for nothing else, I would recommend adding The Wuhan Cover-Up to your library as an invaluable resource on leading figures, organizations, and power brokers involved in the biowarfare-industrial-complex.
Conclusions and Comments
It was especially gratifying to me to read The Wuhan Cover-Up (all 600 pages of it), because it validated my own research, showing that the pandemic response was led by the national security/intelligence arms of government, not public health agencies.
In fact, after reading the first few chapters – the ones that go into the history of chemical and biological warfare and the rise of the biowarfare-industrial-complex – I paradoxically felt an enormous sense of relief.
Finally, we have a detailed account that shows – beyond what I would consider a reasonable doubt – that the entire Covid catastrophe was caused, and led, by a multinational military-intelligence-academic-pharma-tech-NGO cabal.
RFK, Jr.’s conclusion is that we should look to a future “in which the bio-elites are held responsible for their actions, people regain their rights, and the Constitution is restored to its intended preeminence.”
But how do we do that?
I am afraid, based on the information in his own book, and the fact that RFK, Jr. himself is being censored and banned so extensively from the public square, that the solution to the problems he exposes is much more difficult and complex than just “holding the bio-elites responsible” which will somehow lead to people regaining their rights.
What we need to do is to shut down, or extract ourselves from, the global biowarfare-industrial-complex that is able to convince (or coerce?) our governments into declaring states of emergency over supposed pandemic threats, and then curtail civil rights and impose massive surveillance, censorship, and propaganda that would not be permitted in non-emergency situations. Not to mention garnering enormous wealth while forcing the world’s population to accept novel, untested, and potentially lethal medical “countermeasures.”
The Wuhan Cover-Up does a better job than any other book or article I have read at exposing the trends, forces, and institutions that brought us the Covid catastrophe – with hundreds of pages of notes and references. What’s frightening is that the enormity of the problem is beyond the scope of the book, not just to solve, but even to fully acknowledge.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 23:40 -
- Hotel Rooms Or Homes?
Hotel Rooms Or Homes?
Even with Airbnb posting a net loss of $500 million in its fourth quarter of 2023, the past year was a success story for the short-term rental platform, which increased its annual revenue to roughly $10 billion and net income to $4.8 billion.
Nevertheless, as Statista’s Florian Zandt details below, the hotel business is still far more important regarding the revenue generated in the travel and tourism sector.
You will find more infographics at Statista
As the chart above, based on Statista Mobility Market Insights data, shows, hotel accommodation has a larger revenue share in every one of the eight economies projected to generate the most revenue with cruises, package holidays, camping, hotels and vacation rentals.
Italy had the highest share of vacation rentals, which encompasses vacation homes and short-term rentals, in total market revenue with almost 16 percent. The relationship between Airbnb and the Southern European nation, in particular, is fraught. In November, Italian authorities seized 780 million euros from the online platform due to the suspicion of tax evasion. The case was settled in December with Airbnb agreeing to pay 576 million euros without admitting direct liability.
The tourism and travel industry in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan will continue to rely heavily on hotel bookings in 2024 according to Statista analysts, with between 54 and 62 percent of the corresponding total market revenue being provided by this segment. Germany has one of the lowest combined revenue share of hotels and vacation rentals, which can be attributed to the country’s inhabitants’ fondness for package holidays.
Overall, analysts forecast that revenue in all market segments will amount to $927 billion worldwide in the upcoming year.
The United States, China and Germany alone are projected to contribute almost half of this revenue.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 23:20 - How Progressive Policies Are Designed For Civilizational Suicide
How Progressive Policies Are Designed For Civilizational Suicide
Authored by John D. O’Connor via American Greatness,
We all understand, in the timeless words of the poet Robert Burns, that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
Most Americans are accustomed to assessing the various failed initiatives of our country’s leaders as well-intended actions that turned out badly. The Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars, the 2008 financial meltdown, and the COVID pandemic overreaction, all in hindsight, can be viewed as simply the unfolding of human stupidity in the contingency of time.
In accordance, it is understandable that many are inclined to believe that our country’s current serious problems are, once again, merely the failed result of well-intentioned policies.
But what if, we ask, seemingly fumbled programs were intended to be the initial throes of civilizational suicide? What if apparent missteps were actually directed at the purposeful destruction of a prosperous, free, safe, and secure society?
As we examine the policies pushed by the Biden administration progressives regarding climate, national security, crime, and the border, we can rationally conclude that they are being purposely implemented to render our society unsuccessful, not successful, in its traditional aims, causing what could be the ultimate destruction of a thriving, liberal enlightenment society.
Let us begin with escalating climate mandates, now reaching gas stoves and tires, seeking the total elimination of fossil fuels. Because our mainstream media, more out of reflexive conformity than malevolence, constantly amplify climate alarmism, most Americans believe climate programs are designed in good faith to protect us from planetary disasters. Climate subsidies are aimed, they are led to believe, at increasing prosperity through good “green” jobs in emerging “green” industries, all part of the supposedly improved “Bidenomics” economy, however counterintuitive many think them to be.
When Biden, immediately upon assuming office, stopped issuing new drilling leases, canceled the Keystone Pipeline, and issued EPA regulations effectively shutting down multiple power plants in the near future, was he, however idealistically, trying to wean our country off of fossil fuels in favor of clean, “renewable” energy? If so, what could be wrong with that?
If the administration had calculated that lost energy from stifling fossil fuel sources could actually be replaced, these initiatives, even if overly optimistic, could be viewed as well-intended.
However, within the climate camp, it has been well known that fossil fuels, which power 82% of world energy needs, cannot conceivably be replaced by renewable energy to any substantial degree. So, as these policies take effect over the coming years, our hospitals and medical centers, relying on petroleum-based plastic furniture, fixtures, and equipment, energy-dependent stainless-steel implements, and high-power physical plants, will be hit hard. Health care costs will soar, while treatment will decrease to emerging society levels. Our food costs, already rising dramatically, will skyrocket as petroleum fertilizer, now tripling yields, becomes economically impractical. Housing costs, dependent on fuel-powered equipment and concrete and steel needing massive energy inputs to manufacture, will put homeownership out of reach for all but the rich and reduce housing to cramped, third-world levels. And, of course, transportation will become an expensive luxury for both people and products.
But isn’t this all meant well? For trusting, uncritical moderates and traditional liberals, yes. For the progressives pulling the strings, no.
Maurice Strong, the Canadian socialist responsible for steering the United Nations into the bureaucratic sinecures of the climate alarmist IPCC, has stated from the outset that his intention is the diminishment of the wealth of the Western industrialized nations, making them more like less-advantaged societies.
Although they tout their certainty, climate warriors conceal that for decades, their computerized GCMs (General Circulation Models) have overpredicted global warming by 300%. Well, they respond when confronted by the knowledgeable, the increased heat was swallowed by the oceans, or perhaps tamped down by those pesky aerosols. They know better, but gullible, well-intentioned believers do not.
Documents from a key IPCC research center in East Anglia, the GRU, reveal the fear of climate activists that the public will learn of the Medieval Warm Period and that its temperatures were warmer than today without any claimed assistance from carbon dioxide. Progressive climatologists, in essence, know they are pushing a canard.
Progressive border policies need little discussion. When Biden was elected, the country was led to believe that he would aim to control the southern border, but do so in a humane, non-Trump manner, no longer putting children in cages (which in truth and in fact were Obama-inspired).
Of course, to any rational observer, it is now clear that the massive invasion at our southern border was intended by progressives. The “great replacement” theory is not needed to prove this invasion intentional, obvious to any observer. Three-star New York hotels and thousand-dollar-a-month payments to migrants? Free health care? These are among the positive incentives to illegally migrate, revealing intentionality after the maligned Trump proved that the border was substantially controllable.
The intended result of mass migration is not just new Democratic voters; the most obvious result. It is, more significantly, a deliberately overwhelming burden on our social welfare system, heretofore supported sufficiently by taxes on a powerful economy. With more unemployment and more burdens on social welfare, the progress of the aspiring poor, primarily minorities, will be crushed. Our society is headed, as intended by progressives, to socialism, which, as Winston Churchill noted, has “as its greatest virtue the equal sharing of misery.”
Moving to national security, the tinderbox of the Middle East was not caused by Trump’s irrational temperament, which, in hindsight, has proven its deterrent value. Rather, putting Obama’s progressive policies on steroids, Biden both directly sent cash to Iran and also removed oil sanctions, giving the country financial power to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and, of course, Iran’s own depredations on U.S. troops. Biden’s special Iran envoy, the pro-Hamas Rob Malley, and other pro-Iran and pro-Hamas officials influence our Middle East policy to intentionally favor our enemies.
But what could be the progressive motive for Iran’s hegemony in the Middle East? Clearly, it is to cause the demise of “right-wing” leadership in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, all American allies, so that the region will be controlled by anti-American repressive regimes. Interestingly, progressives revealed their anti-democratic, authoritarian roots by supporting Mullahs who kill members of the LGBT community and subdue women. Again, Iran’s terrorism is not an unfortunate artifact of balanced statesmanship. Rather, it is intended to exterminate a democratic Jewish society and a Saudi regime seeking to modernize itself. In a remarkable exercise in projection, progressives at the same time deem Trump to be a Hitler stand-in.
Similarly, the cause of increasing crime in our cities is no mystery. Progressives applauded, not decried, the George Floyd mayhem, largely an exercise in looting. Beautiful cities such as San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Los Angeles, all run by progressives, have become dystopian hellholes.
So, sincere, well-meaning liberals should, but generally do not, see that they are being led like lemmings to the sea, toward civilizational suicide, by the progressives they have long trusted as being in the liberal leadership, not the socialist vanguard.
In the nineteenth century, the brilliant French observer of American culture, Count Alexis de Tocqueville, said that democratic despotism would be effectuated, if at all, not by overt state terror but by the infantilization of a trusting population.
The evidence is now clearly established that moderate liberals should face reality and reject the policies of the progressive vanguard, leading them into civilizational suicide.
* * *
John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books, Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 23:00 - These Are Expected To Be The World's Largest Consumer Markets In 2030
These Are Expected To Be The World’s Largest Consumer Markets In 2030
Consumers are the lifeblood of the global economy, the driving force behind market dynamics, and the ultimate arbiters of demand.
But where are the biggest congregations of consumers, and are they growing?
Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu visualizes the 20 largest consumer markets in the world, based on 2030 projections from World Data Lab, an enterprise focused on creating estimates on global consumer spending.
In this dataset, a consumer is classified as someone who spends at least $12 per day. Sources for the data include the World Bank, UN, Eurostat, and OECD databases.
Ranked: Largest Consumer Markets in 2030
Ranked first, China is expected to have slightly more than 1 billion consumers by 2030, a 15% increase from 2024. Just across the Himalayas, at second place, India will have 773 million consumers, up from 529 million today, a staggering 46% increase.
The rise of the global middle class, thanks to expanding economies and wealth, is expected to boom in this region, in turn increasing local spending ability.
This nearly 2 billion-strong consumer market in India and China could have wide-ranging effects on the global economy. Businesses may shift their focus to cater to these markets, offering more customized products and employing different marketing strategies. This could also require businesses to realign their supply chains and build new distribution networks closer to these markets.
Rank Country Consumer Market
(2030 Projections)% Change
(from 2024)1 🇨🇳 China 1,062,294,436 +15% 2 🇮🇳 India 772,929,623 +46% 3 🇺🇸 U.S. 348,393,863 +4% 4 🇮🇩 Indonesia 158,448,996 +27% 5 🇧🇷 Brazil 135,902,978 +9% 6 🇷🇺 Russia 127,324,784 0% 7 🇯🇵 Japan 118,264,539 -3% 8 🇵🇰 Pakistan 99,263,255 +30% 9 🇲🇽 Mexico 91,698,269 +9% 10 🇧🇩 Bangladesh 87,183,060 +59% 11 🇻🇳 Vietnam 80,383,445 +34% 12 🇩🇪 Germany 80,370,656 0% 13 🇹🇷 Turkey 79,955,332 +8% 14 🇬🇧 UK 69,179,607 +3% 15 🇫🇷 France 67,980,532 +3% 16 🇪🇬 Egypt 67,710,385 +25% 17 🇵🇭 Philippines 65,545,279 +35% 18 🇹🇭 Thailand 58,237,555 +10% 19 🇮🇹 Italy 55,596,017 -1% 20 🇮🇷 Iran 55,219,774 +11% Following current population rankings, the U.S. (348 million consumers), and Indonesia (158 million consumers) rank third and fourth respectively. Brazil, the sixth-most populated country, will have the fifth-largest consumers class by 2030, close to 136 million people.
At the same time, not all countries will see a growing consumer base. Russia and Germany are expected to stagnate, while Japan and Italy could even see a decline, a direct representation of plateauing population growth within these countries.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 22:40 - America's Dysfunctional Overclass
America’s Dysfunctional Overclass
Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times,
What does America’s overclass think of the rest of us? The short answer is “not much.”
They think ordinary people’s splurging on natural resources is destroying the planet and needs to be cut back forcefully.
And that the government needs to stamp down on ordinary people enjoying luxuries that, in their view, should be reserved for the top elites.
These are the implications of the results of two surveys of elite people conducted by pollster Scott Rasmussen by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, an organization that supports low tax rates and low government spending. The surveys covered not large swaths of the population but were confined to the top 1 percent of society.
One survey, the Elite, included only respondents with postgraduate degrees, household incomes above $150,000 and residents in a ZIP code with more than 10,000 people per square mile. Another, Ivy League graduates, included adults who attended Ivy League or other selective private colleges such as Chicago, Duke, Northwestern, or Stanford.
You probably won’t be surprised that the large majority of this Elite feels economically well off. Nor, if you’ve kept up with recent changes in party identification, will you be much surprised that 73 percent of these elites identify as Democrats and only 14 percent as Republicans.
What is surprising is the extent to which this American overclass would deprive its fellow citizens of things they have taken for granted. Half of these groups, 47 percent of Elites and 55 percent of Ivies, say the United States provides people with “too much individual freedom.”
More than three-quarters favor, “to fight climate change, the strict rationing of energy, gas, and meat,” a proposition rejected by 63 percent of the public. Again, “to fight climate change,” between half and two-thirds favor bans on gas stoves (a recent target despite demurrals of Biden bureaucrats and New York state Democrats), gasoline-powered cars (heavily disfavored by Biden Democrats and California rules) and SUVs, “private” air conditioning, and “nonessential air travel.”
The ascetic economist Thorstein Veblen, in his 1899 book “The Theory of the Leisure Class,” argued that the rich engaged in “conspicuous consumption” activities such as golf, polo, and art collecting, for which ordinary people had neither the time nor the money.
A century and a quarter later, America has rich people hoping to deprive ordinary people of “conspicuous consumption” activities they can afford and where they clutter up the airports, interstate highways, and high-end malls.
For generations, Democrats have liked to portray themselves as the tribune of the little man, the defender of policies that enable ordinary people without special advantages, or with many disadvantages, to live comfortably, securely, and in dignity. There may be some condescension in this posture, but also a considerable element of respect.
This survey shows that today, this 1 percent of the public, which includes virtually all elective and appointive Democrats in Washington and states like California, New York, and New Jersey, tends to see the bulk of its fellow citizens as selfish and destructive, in need not just of discipline but deserving of harsh restrictions on their freedoms.
This attitude is echoed by the wider group of Democratic voters. A 2023 Pew Research survey shows that while 31 percent of Republicans, even with their party out of power, think America “stands above all other countries in the world,” only 9 percent of Democrats do so.
It’s an unstable and dangerous situation when a largely one-party elite looks, with fear and loathing, across what Rasmussen describes as a “Grand Canyon gap” between it and its multiparty fellow citizens. It’s reminiscent somehow of the “let them eat cake” French royalists in 1789 or Russian nobles in 1917. An overclass this disconnected and contemptuous risks disruption.
A better approach comes from an undoubted member of America’s elite, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Speaking to CNBC at Davos last month, Dimon recounted a bus trip to Spokane and Boise and Bozeman: “People are growing. They’re hungry to grow. They’re innovating. It’s everywhere. It’s not just Silicon Valley.”
Perhaps aware the Mountain West votes Republican, Dimon, who calls himself a centrist Democrat, conceded that former President Donald Trump “wasn’t wrong about some of the critical issues” and was “kind of right” about NATO and immigration and “grew the economy quite well.”
Of elite Democrats’ contempt for Trump supporters, he had less to say.
“The Democrats have done a good job with the deplorables, hugging their Bibles and their beer and their guns. I mean, really? Can we stop that stuff and actually grow up and treat other people respectfully and listen to them a little bit?”
It’s a question other members of our dysfunctional overclass might ask themselves.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 22:20 - Tennis Courts Slated For Empty Manhattan Lot After Office Tower Plans Postponed
Tennis Courts Slated For Empty Manhattan Lot After Office Tower Plans Postponed
Vornado Realty Trust appears to have abandoned plans for an office tower near Madison Square Garden as the commercial real estate downturn worsens.
Bloomberg reports the site of the once-planned 61-floor office tower in Manhattan could be “temporarily” converted to tennis courts for the US Open. Vornado’s website said the site has the potential for basketball courts, New York Fashion Week, or even a giant billboard.
The new office tower was set to replace Hotel Pennsylvania at 401 Seventh Avenue (15 Penn Plaza) in Manhattan, across from Pennsylvania Station and Madison Square Garden. The hotel was demolished in 2023, and Vornado has not built the new office tower due to CRE turmoil.
But Vornado put the tower plan on hold along with parts of the massive redevelopment plan to remake Penn Station last year after high interest rates and the shift to working from home triggered a crisis in the commercial real estate market. -Bloomberg
A Vornado spokesperson told Bloomberg: “We are currently considering a number of potential interim options for the Hotel Pennsylvania site.”
Chief Executive Officer Steven Roth told investors in an earnings call this week that there’s a “total blacklisting of office in the capital markets.” Hence, this is why Vornado can’t find the financing for the new tower. He also warned about “office apocalypse” spreading across Midtown.
The construction delay also came as office supply nationwide developed into a sizeable surplus as demand evaporated. This was noted by Morgan Stanley analyst Ronald Kamdem in a note this week titled “Where Is The Highest Supply Risk Across CRE Sectors?”
What’s unfolding is a slow-motion trainwreck in the CRE space. Financing for new office towers is becoming increasingly difficult to secure, and some properties, such as the one in Manhattan, are being repurposed into tennis courts.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 22:00 - Elite Colleges Reconsidering SAT Score Requirements
Elite Colleges Reconsidering SAT Score Requirements
Authored by Eric Lundrum via American Greatness,
Several elite universities are considering reversing recent decisions to reduce or even eliminate requirements for application that include standardized test scores such as the SAT exams.
According to Axios, multiple colleges used the Chinese Coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to weaken the importance of SAT and ACT test scores in most student applications. But in recent weeks, several schools have reversed course; Yale is considering repealing its prior policy of making SAT/ACT requirements optional, with Dartmouth already reinstating the requirements earlier this month. MIT reversed a similar policy back in 2022.
Other schools that have eliminated SAT/ACT requirements include Harvard and Columbia. Harvard, along with Cornell and Princeton, have extended their policy of making the scores optional, while Columbia’s policy remains permanent.
One of the motivating factors behind the reversal is ongoing research showing a clear correlation between students’ standardized test scores, and their subsequent academic performance and graduation rates in college. Some schools had previously opposed the test requirements for reasons of “diversity,” baselessly accusing the tests of being “racist” and against minority students.
Dartmouth pointed to a study that had been commissioned by the university’s president, which “confirms that standardized testing — when assessed using the local norms at a student’s high school” is crucial in evaluating an applicant’s potential.
In a statement, Yale’s undergraduate office said that they “expect to announce a decision on its long-term testing policy in the next few weeks.” In the meantime, students applying for the Fall of 2024 will still fall under the “not optional” category when it comes to standardized tests.
Brown University is currently awaiting a committee’s recommendations on how to move forward with standardized testing, as well as other practices such as legacy admissions and early decisions. The committee is expected to finish its report in the next few months.
There are still over 2,000 schools in the country which remain either optional or completely free of standardized test requirements ahead of the 2024-2025 academic year. Meanwhile, the National Education Association (NEA) has demanded that all colleges eliminate testing requirements, with NEA president Becky Pringle declaring in a statement that “All students deserve and have the ability to demonstrate knowledge in many ways that are measurable by those who know them best: Their educators.”
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 21:40 - Kremlin Calls Nuclear Space Weapon Story A 'Trick' To Get Biden's Ukraine Aid Passed
Kremlin Calls Nuclear Space Weapon Story A ‘Trick’ To Get Biden’s Ukraine Aid Passed
The Kremlin has blasted what it is calling the “malicious fabrication” by the US government of its alleged new ‘space weapon’ which set off a frenzy of media speculation this week.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he believes it was a trick by lawmakers to get Biden’s massive Ukraine and foreign defense aid package passed. “It’s obvious that Washington is trying to force Congress to vote on the aid bill by hook or by crook,” he said.
Sputnik via Reuters US officials and media continue to walk back the initial hyped and headline-grabbing claims of a Russian nuclear space weapon.
According to the latest from Reuters, “The space-based weapon U.S. intelligence believes Russia may be developing is more likely a nuclear-powered device to blind, jam or fry the electronics inside satellites than an explosive nuclear warhead to shoot them down, analysts said.”
And more, “Analysts tracking Russia’s space programs say the space threat is probably not a nuclear warhead but rather a high-powered device requiring nuclear energy to carry out an array of attacks against satellites.” The report goes on to list:
These might include signal-jammers, weapons that can blind image sensors, or – a more dire possibility – electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) that could fry all satellites’ electronics within a certain orbital region.”
During a Thursday press briefing White House national security council spokesman John Kirby belatedly confirmed that reports of a new Russian capability was related to “an anti-satellite capability that Russia is developing,” but that “This is not an active capability that’s been deployed.”
It all started when Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio set Capitol Hill media correspondents into a frenzy of speculation after on Wednesday he issued an ominous-sounding statement about “information concerning a serious national security threat.”
Cue trolling and mockery by Russian government accounts…
⚡️⚡️ YET ANOTHER THREAT ⚡️⚡️:
Russia’s nuclear space “weapon”
With everyone talking about the US government panicking over a new Russian “space weapon”, we suggest to look into what it really could be.
(Remember the warmongers in the West saying Russia was stealing washing… pic.twitter.com/ILEGjCaH5Y
— Russian Embassy in South Africa 🇷🇺 (@EmbassyofRussia) February 16, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This sparked a very short-lived media panic, and by Friday it’s already largely been forgotten about. There are even new reports saying Moscow has held out the possibility of cooperation with the West on new satellite technology, but of course this could also be another example of the Kremlin trolling Western media.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 21:20 - House OKs Bill Prohibiting Any Normalization With Syria
House OKs Bill Prohibiting Any Normalization With Syria
Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,
On Wednesday, the House passed a bill that prohibits the US from opening diplomatic relations with the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and expands harsh sanctions on Syria to prevent other countries from normalizing with Syria.
The Assad Regime Anti-Normalization Act passed in a vote of 389-32, demonstrating broad bipartisan support for the economic war against Syria. Only 28 Democrats and four Republicans voted against the bill. The legislation now heads to the Senate.
The bill was introduced as a reaction to Arab countries repairing relations with the Assad government and Syria being brought back into the Arab league. Hawks in the US are opposed to Syria’s regional integration and are hoping they can prevent it using sanctions under the Caesar Act.
The Caesar Act was implemented in 2020 and allows the US to sanction any individual or entity that does business with the Syrian government. The sanctions are specifically designed to prevent Syria from rebuilding, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken has previously said it’s US policy to “oppose the reconstruction of Syria” as long as Assad remains in power.
The text of the bill declares that it’s US policy “to actively oppose recognition or normalization of relations by other governments with any Government of Syria that is led by Bashar Al-Assad, including by fully implementing the mandatory primary and secondary sanctions in the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act.”
On top of the economic sanctions on Syria, the US has about 900 troops occupying the eastern portion of the country, where it backs the Kurdish-led SDF and controls oil fields.
Syria and regional analyst Joshua Landis: “What an odd form of justice for Syrians: block reconstruction and ensure poverty.”
US Passes Bill to extend Sanctions on Syria until 2032
“Congress is sending a message that it remains committed to justice for the Syrian people.”
Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee Mike McCaul said.
Mr Ghanem adds “If Caesar is allowed to expire, then it will… pic.twitter.com/ih8toxgWsR
— Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) February 16, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Recent reports have suggested the US was considering a withdrawal from Syria as its forces have been under attack since October due to US support for the Israeli slaughter in Gaza. But an SDF commander said last week that he received assurances from the US that a withdrawal was not on the table.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 21:00 - Visualizing Racial Diversity In America's 10 Largest States
Visualizing Racial Diversity In America’s 10 Largest States
Over the last decade, America has become increasingly more diverse as demographic patterns shift across the population.
With over 39 million people, California is not only the most populous state, but one of the most diverse in the country.
Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu created this graphic to show the racial diversity of the 10 biggest states by population, based on data from the U.S. Census.
How Diverse Are America’s Most Populous States?
Here is the racial breakdown of the 10 largest U.S. states:
As the table above shows, California has the highest proportion of Asian Americans across the top 10 states, comprising 15% of the population.
Meanwhile, Georgia’s ethnic makeup includes 32% of Black Americans, the highest across the most populous states. As diversity has risen over the last decade, it has significantly influenced politics at both the state and national level. The state voted Republican for every presidential election from 1996-2016, but flipped blue in 2020.
With 80% of the population being White Americans, Ohio has the highest share across the biggest states. While diversity has increased since 2010, it has been seen mostly in urban and suburban districts while diversity has stagnated in rural areas.
Overall, 24% of rural areas in the U.S. are made up of non-White Americans, rising by a median rate of 3.5% across counties since 2010. While this debunks the myth that “rural” is synonymous with “white”, racial diversity across rural areas falls below the national average of 42% of the population being people of color.
Beyond the top 10 states, ethnic diversity is the highest in Hawaii, Nevada, and Maryland.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 20:40 - "Biden Reelection Chances Do Not Look Favorable": Political, Economic Indicators "Not Promising", Gallup Finds
“Biden Reelection Chances Do Not Look Favorable”: Political, Economic Indicators “Not Promising”, Gallup Finds
By Jeffrey Jones and Megan Brennan of Gallup
Several key indicators of the 2024 election environment indicate that President Joe Biden faces an uphill climb to win a second term. His job approval rating, Americans’ satisfaction with how things are going in the country and their confidence in the economy are below the levels associated with successful reelection bids in recent elections.
While Democrats hold a slight edge in national party identification and partisan leanings, that advantage is smaller than what it has been in past presidential elections won by Democratic incumbents.
In less direct measures of the electoral environment, Americans are more inclined to say that they are worse off financially, that it is harder to buy things and that the U.S. is as respected throughout the world as it was before Biden took office.
Biden’s fate will ultimately be determined by whether Americans’ views on these metrics improve over the course of the year (as they did for Bill Clinton in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2012), stay the same or get worse (as they did for George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Donald Trump in 2020).
Presidential Job Approval
Incumbent job approval is arguably the best predictor of reelection success. Presidents with approval ratings of 50% or higher close to Election Day have all been reelected. All but one president with a sub-50% approval rating lost, the exception being George W. Bush. He won reelection with a 48% approval rating in Gallup’s final 2004 preelection poll taken in late October. However, he registered multiple 50% readings earlier in the month and had a 51% approval rating among likely voters in that final survey.
Among the approval ratings that did not carry incumbents to victory, Trump’s 46% approval rating is the highest and Gerald Ford’s 45% is close behind. The inauspicious ratings descend from there, all the way down to 34% for George H.W. Bush.
Biden’s 41% job approval rating, the lowest among incumbents in January of an election year, puts him in a precarious spot. It has not been unusual for incumbents to be below the 50% threshold this early on. But Biden’s reelection may depend on his ability to boost his numbers close to that threshold, something Clinton, Obama and Richard Nixon were able to do but Trump and Ford were not. Other presidents, including George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, saw significant declines in approval during their fourth year in office.
Satisfaction With the State of the Nation
Over the past four decades, incumbent presidents have still been reelected when majorities of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country, but the cutoff seems to be 30% satisfaction. Less than 30% of U.S. adults were satisfied at the time of the 1992 and 2020 elections when the elder Bush and Trump lost, whereas more than 30% were satisfied in the years incumbents won.
Biden started 2024 with 20% of Americans satisfied with the country’s direction. Obama and Clinton had similar marks in January of their reelection years but saw satisfaction increase as the year wore on. For Trump, the opposite was the case, as the relatively high 41% satisfaction in January 2020 was soon dashed by the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic downturn, as well as racial strife associated with the George Floyd killing.
Economic Evaluations
Although the economy is always a key issue in presidential election campaigns, Americans’ confidence in the economy is not always determinative of election outcomes. Gallup has computed its Economic Confidence Index in five presidential election years since 1992 when an incumbent sought reelection. The index summarizes Americans’ assessments of current national economic conditions and their perceptions of whether the economy is getting better or worse. Positive scores indicate economic optimism, and negative scores indicate pessimism, with a minimum theoretical score of -100 and a maximum of +100.
Among the past five incumbent elections, Americans were decidedly positive about the economy in one — 1996, when Clinton was reelected — and decidedly negative in one — 1992, when George H.W. Bush was defeated. In 2004, 2012 and 2020, index scores were close to the scale’s zero midpoint, indicating neither positive nor negative views of the economy. In two of those elections (2004 and 2012), the incumbent prevailed, but in 2020, Trump lost, likely because the coronavirus pandemic overshadowed the economy as an issue.
Currently, Americans’ economic confidence is closer to that of 1992 than other incumbent election years. However, the index has been improving in recent months. Biden can hope that economic perceptions follow a similar trajectory to 2012. That year, confidence started more negative than positive but approached a more neutral rating by the election, which Obama won.
Party Identification and Leaning
Americans’ partisanship strongly aligns with how they will vote and is thus an important indicator of election outcomes. Democrats typically lead Republicans in Americans’ party preferences; therefore, the size of that lead indicates whether Democrats are in a strong or weak position.
Gallup’s January 2024 poll shows the Democratic Party with a three-point advantage over Republicans: 46% identify as or lean Democratic, and 43% identify as or lean Republican. If this were October, these figures would be concerning for Biden, as it would represent the smallest Democratic advantage in an incumbent election year, including 2004 when Republican George W. Bush won with Democrats holding a five-point edge. In years Democratic incumbents won (1996 and 2012), the Democrats’ party advantage was +10 and +7, respectively.
A possible silver lining for the Biden campaign is that Democrats’ party advantage has often increased between January and October or November of an election year. This has occurred in all election years featuring an incumbent since 1992.
While Democratic Party identification and leaning have increased in each of the past five election years involving an incumbent, that pattern has not occurred in other recent elections. In non-incumbent years, Democrats increased their advantage in one (2000), saw no change in another (2016) and saw it shrink in one (2008).
Better Off Than Three Years Ago
Americans are evenly divided in their assessments of whether they are better off now than they were three years ago, with 48% saying they are and 47% saying they are not.
Gallup has asked this question in the early stages of previous election campaigns when incumbents were running for reelection. The current share of U.S. adults who say they are better off now is down from 2020’s pre-pandemic reading, but it is similar to the readings in prior election cycles. In 1992, 1996 and 2003, more Americans said they were better off, and two of the three presidents won reelection. In 2012, slightly more said they were not better off, but Obama still won another term.
Americans’ perceptions of whether they are personally better off now than three years ago are largely influenced by their party leanings and, to a lesser extent, their income level. There is currently a wide gulf between Democrats’ (74%) and Republicans’ (22%) assessments of whether they are better off than three years ago, and independents are squarely in the middle of the two groups, at 48%.
This is the fifth election cycle of the past six that partisans in the same party as the sitting president seeking reelection are significantly more likely than their counterparts to say they are better off. The gaps in partisans’ reports since 1992 have ranged from four points in 1996 when Clinton ran for a second term to 60 points in 2020 when Trump ran. The current 52-point gap is the second highest.
Meanwhile, 53% of those in upper-income households and 50% in middle-income households say they are better off, compared with 41% in lower-income households.
The “better off than three years ago” question is typically only asked early in election campaigns. Near the end of prior campaigns, Gallup has asked Americans whether they were better off than four years ago. That question has not shown an obvious relationship to election outcomes, exemplified by the high scores in the 2020 election that Trump eventually lost and weaker scores in Reagan’s 1984 landslide.
Personal Finances
While the current U.S. inflation rate is far below its 9.1% recent peak in June 2022, it is about twice what it was in November 2020, and many Americans continue to struggle because of high prices. Only 35% of U.S. adults say it is easier to buy things at stores than it was three years ago, while 59% say it is not.
The share of Americans who currently say shopping is not easier is higher than in 1992, 1996, 2003 and 2020. The question was not asked in other presidential election cycles and is not asked at the end of campaigns.
The previous reading from January 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic forced widespread shutdowns, showed a slim 52% majority saying it was easier for them to make purchases than three years ago, and 36% said it was not.
Americans’ reports of their own financial situation are also more negative now than in early 2020. Currently, 37% of U.S. adults say they are financially better off than a year ago, 45% say they are worse off, and 16% volunteer that they are the same. These readings are similar to last year’s but sharply different from the last election year, 2020, when 59% reported being better off and 20% worse off.
Looking ahead, a steady 61% majority of Americans think they will be financially better off in a year, but this is lower than the 74% who said the same in 2020.
Readings on these personal finance measures differ significantly by party identification, with Democrats much more positive than Republicans. Democrats (58%) are more than four times as likely as Republicans (14%) to say buying things is easier than it was three years ago. Similarly, Democrats (57%) are nearly three times as likely as their Republican counterparts (20%) to say their personal financial situation is better now than three years ago. Independents’ views on both are closer to Republicans’, as 33% say shopping is easier and 35% report an improvement in their financial situation.
There is no significant difference by household income level in views of buying power, as majorities across income groups say it is not easier to shop. However, lower-income (32%) and middle-income households (36%) are less likely than upper-income households (47%) to say their personal financial situation is better than one year ago.
U.S. International Respect
When it comes to foreign policy, only about one-quarter of Americans, 27%, think the U.S. is as respected throughout the world as it was three years ago, while 67% say it is not. Just 3% volunteer that it is more respected now. Americans were similarly pessimistic about the United States’ international standing in past election years, with no more than 40% (in 1992 and 2000) believing respect for the U.S. remained intact. The current reading is identical to 2003 and similar to 2012 (30%).
The U.S. has had varying degrees of involvement in world affairs over the past three years, ranging from its military departure from Afghanistan in 2021, its support for Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine war, and its military support for Israel following the October 2023 Hamas invasion of Israel, which resulted in an Israeli military operation in Gaza. Both the Russia-Ukraine and Hamas-Israeli wars are ongoing, and Americans are sharply divided over the proper U.S. role in each.
Democrats are split in their view of whether the U.S. is as respected around the world as it was three years ago, with 47% saying it is and 44% saying it is not. At the same time, 7% of Republicans think the U.S. is as respected, and 91% think it is not. Independents fall in between the partisan groups, with 27% saying it is respected and 67% saying it is not.
Bottom Line
Biden’s reelection chances do not look very favorable in early 2024. His job approval rating is lower than all recent incumbents at the same point, including those who ultimately lost the election, and key national mood indicators are more in line with those for past losers than winners. Party identification offers Biden some hope but depends on Democrats making gains rather than holding steady in national support, something that has happened at least slightly in each of the past five incumbent elections.
Biden’s chances may rest on him experiencing a comeback similar to what Obama achieved in 2012 when Biden was serving as vice president. That year, national mood indicators and Obama’s job approval rating significantly improved during the campaign, and the president was elected to a second term. Unlike Obama, though, Biden also faces questions about his age and ability to carry out his duties in a second term. Biden is also starting at a lower point in job approval than Obama did, meaning he has to show a bigger improvement.
Biden won his first term after national mood indicators worsened throughout the 2020 election year, which led to his defeating Trump, the incumbent.
Many Americans continue to struggle financially, and Biden has so far been unable to convince voters of the economy’s health or his accomplishments. If he cannot do so by the summer, particularly before the Democratic National Convention, his chances of winning reelection will grow increasingly bleak.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 20:20 - Maryland Proposes Raising Registration Fee For Pickup Trucks
Maryland Proposes Raising Registration Fee For Pickup Trucks
As if the Federal government wasn’t doing enough to try and incentivize buying EVs by subsidizing purchases and shaming people who drive ICE vehicles, Maryland is now considering raising vehicle registration fees for trucks.
And what would government legislation absconding with more of your purchasing power be without an altruistic sounding name? This one is called the “Pedestrian Fatality Prevention Act of 2024,” according to CBS affiliate WBOC.
In other words, if you don’t support the higher fees, you’re rooting for pedestrians to die.
The Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles notes that the registration fee for smaller vehicles, like the Honda Civic, is currently $135, with a proposed reduction to $50 under new legislation. Conversely, the fee for larger vehicles, such as the Ford F-250 pickup truck, now at $187, would rise to $229 if the legislation is enacted.
The report says that vehicles weighing 3,700 pounds or less have a registration fee of $135, while those over 3,700 pounds are charged $187. The proposed changes would introduce a tiered fee structure: $50.50 for vehicles up to 3,500 pounds, $101 for those between 3,500 and 3,700 pounds, $153 for vehicles between 3,700 and 5,000 pounds, and $229.50 for vehicles over 5,000 pounds.
“Pick-up trucks shouldn’t be penalized because it’s a pick-up truck. It’s a necessary vehicle in a lot of cases,” commented pick-up driver David Kenney.
Delegate Robbyn Lewis of Baltimore City, who proposed the bill, argues that the revenue from increased fees would fund transit and pedestrian safety projects, citing the higher risk of injury and death from crashes involving heavier vehicles.
Kenney, while prioritizing pedestrian safety, questions the effectiveness of raising fees on pickup trucks as a means to reduce fatalities, emphasizing the need for careful driving.
The bill is currently under review in Maryland’s legislature, with discussions ongoing about its potential to enhance pedestrian safety – though we’re sure the selling point is really the extra revenue it’ll contribute to the state’s top line.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 20:00 - Study Finds 80% Of Americans Exposed To Fertility-Lowering Chemicals In Cheerios, Quaker Oats
Study Finds 80% Of Americans Exposed To Fertility-Lowering Chemicals In Cheerios, Quaker Oats
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,
According to a recent study, four in five Americans tested positive for an agricultural chemical found in several wheat and oat products, including brands like Cheerios and Quaker Oats.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the JESEE journal on Feb. 15, looked at urine samples from American citizens to determine their exposure to chlormequat chloride—a plant growth chemical. Exposure to the chemical can result in lower fertility and harm developing fetuses even at doses below acceptable levels set by regulators. Researchers detected chlormequat in 80 percent of urine samples collected between 2017 and 2023, with “a significant increase in concentrations for samples from 2023.”
The chemical was detected in “92 percent of oat-based foods purchased in May 2023, including Quaker Oats and Cheerios,” said the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which conducted the study.
Out of 25 conventional oat products tested, 23 had “detectable levels” of chlormequat. One in eight organic oat products had the chemical, while two in nine wheat products had low concentrations of chlormequat.
Researchers collected 96 urine samples, out of which 77 showed the presence of chlormequat. The numbers suggest that the subjects likely underwent “continuous exposure” to the chemical since chlormequat leaves the body about 24 hours after ingestion.
The frequency of the chemical in samples was observed to rise with time. In 2017, 69 percent of samples had chlormequat, which jumped to 74 percent in 2018-2022 and then to 90 percent in 2023.
The study suggested that the higher chemical concentration in 2023 samples “may reflect the likely recent introduction of chlormequat into the U.S. food supply due to EPA regulatory action changes involving chlormequat.”
Such changes include “establishing limits on chlormequat in food in 2018 and raising those limits for oats in 2020,” it said. “These actions permitted import and sale of agricultural products that had been treated with chlormequat, for example, from Canada.”
At present, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only allows the use of chlormequat in the United States for ornamental crops, not for food crops. The agency allowed the chemical to be present in imported oats in 2018—raising the allowable limits in 2020.
Following a 2019 application submitted by chlormequat manufacturer Taminco, the Biden EPA proposed in April last year to allow the use of chlormequat on oats, barley, wheat, and triticale grown in the United States for the first time. EWG said it “opposes the plan.”
The study suggested that if domestic use of chlormequat were approved, “chlormequat levels would likely continue to increase in oats, wheat, and other grain foods, leading to higher levels of exposure for the U.S. general population.”
The research was funded by Skyline Foundation. The authors declared no competing interests in the study.
Threshold Levels
The study pointed out that urine sample donors were exposed to chlormequat at “levels several orders of magnitude below” the recommended safety thresholds set by the EPA and the European Food Safety Authority. However, “toxicological studies on chlormequat suggest reevaluation of these safety thresholds may be warranted,” it said.
Researchers pointed to studies showing that mice and pigs exposed to doses lower than these thresholds have displayed “reduced fertility.” One analysis found that exposure to chlormequat at a dose equivalent to a level used for determining the EPA threshold “altered fetal growth as well as metabolism and body composition in neonatal mice.”
“Additionally, the regulatory thresholds do not consider the adverse effects of mixtures of chemicals that may impact the reproductive system, which have been shown to cause additive or synergistic effects at doses lower than for individual chemical exposures.”
These factors raise “concerns about the potential health effects associated with current exposure levels, especially for individuals on the higher end of exposure in general populations of Europe and the U.S.”
Speaking to The New York Post, Olga Naidenko, EWG’s vice president of science investigations, recommended shoppers “buy organic oat products since these oats are grown without the use of toxic pesticides such as chlormequat and glyphosate.”
‘Alarm Bells’
In an interview with Newsweek, Alexis M. Temkin, lead author of the EWG study, said that the prevalence of chlormequat in people’s food and urine “raises alarm bells.”
He called for further investigation into the matter and said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “should be testing grains for chlormequat as part of annual pesticide monitoring.”
The EPA “needs to fully consider the potential risks to children’s health from chlormequat exposure and reconsider their recent decisions to allow chlormequat to be present in children’s foods.”
EPA announced the proposal to use chlormequat in domestic crop agriculture last April. Since then, several organizations like EWG have opposed the move.
In May 2023, Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) said that it collected over 10,000 signatures calling on the agency to reject the proposal.
“All this chemical is used for is to make the stems of small grains a little bit stronger, so fewer of them bend or break. A slightly bigger harvest isn’t worth the risk to our health,” it said in comments to the EPA.
“Research shows that chlormequat chloride disrupts fetal growth and harms the reproductive system. We shouldn’t allow its use on food crops unless and until it’s proven completely safe—especially since we know we can farm without it. “
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 19:40 - Russian Media Thrilled By Biden's LNG "Gift" To Putin
Russian Media Thrilled By Biden’s LNG “Gift” To Putin
This week, President Vladimir Putin praised President Joe Biden as a more experienced and predictable president than Donald Trump, hoping the 81yo president “with a poor memory” wins a second term.
Meanwhile, Trump made remarks during a campaign rally Wednesday night in South Carolina on Putin’s comments:
“He’s just said that he would much rather have Joe Biden as president than Trump. Now that’s a compliment. A lot of people said, ‘Oh, gee, that’s too bad.’ No, no, that’s a good thing.”
Democrats spent years framing Trump as ‘Putin’s puppet,’ but the actions by Biden, essentially handing over the global energy kingdom to Moscow by halting permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects in Texas, is a stark reminder of why Putin prefers the elderly and weak president.
Last month, the Wall Street Journal editorial board called Biden’s LNG export license halt “an election-year gift to Russia and Iran.“
And the editorial board is out with another piece titled “Biden’s LNG ‘Gift’ to Vladimir Putin.”
This latest note by the editorial board points out how Russian media is “thrilled” by Biden’s LNG gas export ban:
“Now it is not Russia, but the United States that wants to bring the Germans to their knees,” gloated the Russian newspaper Pravda after the Energy Department imposed a moratorium on permits for new LNG export projects last month. Pravda argued that Germany will eventually have to return to buying Russian gas because it will have no other choice, and it may be right.
They cite another Russian media outlet:
RedDigest, a Russian-based news source, also predicted Europe will need to buy more Russian gas and be forced to pay a higher price. “The EU may well turn to Moscow for additional supplies. Of course, there will be no talk of any discounts,” a Feb. 3 article sneered. Mr. Biden’s LNG embargo will leave Europe more vulnerable to Mr. Putin’s energy blackmail.
And another:
Bloknot, a pro-war Russian media outlet, accused the U.S. of scheming to replace Russian gas and then pulling the rug from under Europeans. “A brilliant scam: how the States fooled Europe with gas,” read a Bloknot headline. RT (formerly Russia Today) gloated that Mr. Biden’s “very timely decision to ban LNG exports” was a “gift to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.”
In a separate note, WSJ said Biden’s attempt to punish Texas over the border dispute is part of a campaign by wealthy donors – including the Rockefeller family – to pressure the government into shifting away from LNG.
Why are America’s elites and an elderly president with a “poor memory” giving Putin the keys to the global energy kingdom under the guise of ‘climate change’?
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 19:20 - California Counties Could Be Forced To Pay $300 Million To Cover COVID-Era Program
California Counties Could Be Forced To Pay $300 Million To Cover COVID-Era Program
Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,
With the state and some local governments facing significant budget shortfalls this year, finances could become even tighter after the Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA, informed California officials that it will deny some pandemic-related reimbursement claims.
At issue is money spent on unoccupied hotel rooms and housing homeless individuals for lengthy stays between June 11, 2021, and May 11, 2023, as part of the state’s Project Roomkey program.
The governor’s Office of Emergency Services said it is working to reverse the agency’s decision.
“California is committed to maximizing federal aid to local communities and intends to aggressively advocate for FEMA to rescind the decision to deny Public Assistance to local governments,” Brian Ferguson, deputy director for crisis communications and public affairs for the Office of Emergency Services, told The Epoch Times by email Feb. 14.
More than $300 million is at stake, according to a Jan. 31 letter sent to FEMA by Nancy Ward, director of the emergency services office.
“[We] urge FEMA to rescind the decision to deny public assistance funding … as it changes the rules for reimbursement of … expenses after such services were provided and directly conflicts with prior FEMA guidance,” Ms. Ward wrote.
The change represents a retroactive revision that failed to meet the emergency management agency’s self-declared notification policies that require a 30-day notice to the state, according to the letter.
Such will result in some counties across California experiencing “financial burdens, budgetary shortfalls,” and a diminished ability to provide essential services, Ms. Ward wrote.
A Project Roomkey participant stands outside her door at The Stanton Inn in Stanton, Calif., on October 8, 2020. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)
Documents attached to the letter detail costs that some counties would incur, including $22 million for Ventura, $32 million for Sonoma, and up to $34 million for San Diego. San Francisco submitted claims for approximately $881 million, with $190 million ineligible based on the federal government’s recent decision.
Additionally, the state is alleging that FEMA is inconsistently applying its policies for other states. Officials point to the agency’s April 2023 announcement that Vermont would receive nearly $22 million to reimburse costs for hotel lodging and services to homeless populations through July 2022.
The guidelines presented to California in a letter sent by FEMA in October 2023 represent a reimbursement period of a full year less than is being provided to Vermont, according to the letter.
Disputing the state’s allegations, the agency claimed all states are held to the same standards—with guidance coming from the Centers for Disease Control, also known as the CDC.
“Every state, territory and tribal nation was provided with the same guidance and policy updates throughout the pandemic,” a spokesperson for FEMA told The Epoch Times by email Feb. 13.
“This guidance also included information on transitioning individuals from other programs that could … keep them out of high-risk situations.”
The agency is reviewing thousands of applications from across the country and is focused on finalizing reimbursement for eligible applicants while maintaining fiscal responsibility, according to the spokesperson.
“FEMA is committed to working with each impacted jurisdiction on all requests for federal funding to maximize reimbursement for the appropriate life saving measures they implemented to protect their citizens from COVID-19, while also ensuring the appropriate oversight of federal funds,” the representative from the emergency management agency said.
“Consistent with this intent, FEMA will review the state of California’s recent letter regarding their COVID-19 sheltering operations and provide a response to the state as soon as possible.”
In the letter informing the state of the agency’s decision to deny claims, Robert J. Fenton, regional administrator for FEMA Region 9—encompassing California—noted the efforts made to reduce COVID transmission by July 1, 2021, as a reason guidance was adjusted at the time.
The agency is willing to cover costs incurred or stays of up to 20 days, the timeline recommended by the CDC said at the time. However, the bill submitted by California includes longer stays that make the claims ineligible, Mr. Fenton wrote.
Additionally, stays of any length for homeless individuals qualify for reimbursement only if they tested positive for COVID-19, had been exposed—with documentation from health officials or medical professionals—or were at high-risk, including those over 65 or with specific underlying health conditions.
With the state and federal agency at odds over the interpretation of policy guidelines, several counties are working with a disaster recovery attorney to seek compensation.
The lawyer representing the counties, Wendy Huff Ellard of the national law firm Baker Donelson headquartered in Houston, Texas, told The Epoch Times the process could be lengthy and might ultimately result in arbitration.
She said counties are hopeful that FEMA will reverse its decision once its impact on local governments is better understood.
“The counties were under the impression that these costs would be covered,” Ms. Ellard said. “They’re relying on FEMA to reimburse these funds.”
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 19:00 - Israel Spying On US Inquiries Into West Bank Settler Violence – With Goal Of Thwarting Sanctions
Israel Spying On US Inquiries Into West Bank Settler Violence – With Goal Of Thwarting Sanctions
Israeli intelligence has been spying on information shared with the US government by the Palestinian Authority about West Bank settler violence against Palestinians — spying with the purpose of thwarting US attempts to hold settlers accountable, according to a report by Israeli news outlet +972 Magazine.
Settler violence against West Bank Palestinians, which gets little attention in Western media, takes many forms: murder, arson, assaults, vandalism, distributing threatening leaflets ordering Palestinians to leave their homes, blocking roads with boulders, cutting power lines, shutting down water wells, and setting fire to cherished olive groves that are important to Palestinian livelihoods and culture.
Palestinians survey the destruction inflicted by Israeli settlers near Ramallah in the West Bank in June 2023 (Reuters/Ammar Awad via Brookings) Following a major 2023 uptick in violence against Palestinians — which started well before the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion of southern Israel but then got even worse — the United States, United Kingdom and France have started imposing sanctions on individual perpetrators. Punishments include the freezing of financial assets, barring travel to the United States, and prohibitions against Americans transacting with the sanctioned settlers.
According to Israeli intelligence sources, Israel has been surveilling information and allegations about settler violence that the Palestinian Authority has been forwarding to the Office of U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC), which is led by Lieutenant General Michael Fenzel.
Israel’s goal isn’t to join in imposing justice on the villains, but rather to help them avoid accountability imposed by the United States, the sources tell +972 Magazine. Said one:
“We want to know what the Americans know. The goal is to know what is going to hit us when Fenzel comes and demands answers about these cases. It’s not for going after the settlers and arresting them — that’s why a lot of people here felt uncomfortable doing it.
…The Americans are demanding accountability from Israel, and the Israelis are finding themselves embarrassed. The fact that we are being asked to look for the materials indicates that Israel has no good answers.
…We’re working to help refute these allegations, or prevent them from developing into sanctions.”
On Monday, armed Israeli settlers attacked Huwwara, a town in the West Bank, occupied Palestine, and burned several cars. They also attempted to set fire to at least two houses. pic.twitter.com/xOqambL5xq
— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) February 13, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Two weeks ago, the US government sanctioned four settlers for their crimes against Palestinians. They included 29-year-old David Chai Chasdai who was determined to have instigated a February 2023 settler rampage in Huwwara (which was also attacked this week) that inflicted widespread property destruction, to include arson. One man was killed and 98 injured. Another sanctioned individual was among a group that assaulted Palestinian farmers and sympathetic Israel activists with clubs and stones.
The USSC has an inventory of hundreds of settler violence incident reports to work through. Those reports come from the Palestinian Authority, but USSC does its own investigations, and the final decision to impose sanctions also reflects other sources.
⏺The vehicle that was set on fire by herds of settlers during their attack on the town of Asira Al-Qibliya, south of #Nablus#stopwar
. pic.twitter.com/B3lewhD5WU— SM (@al_melgy75828) February 12, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
One of +972 Magazine‘s Israeli sources say targets of upcoming sanctions will include senior Israeli civil servants, which will compound the mounting damage to the Zionist state’s reputation.
In a Feb. 1 executive order, Biden declared that “the situation in the West Bank — in particular high levels of extremist settler violence, forced displacement of people and villages, and property destruction — has reached intolerable levels and constitutes a serious threat to the peace, security, and stability of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel, and the broader Middle East region.”
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 18:40 - Trump Slams 'Election Interference' And 'Tyrannical Abuse Of Power' After $364 Million Verdict; Vows To Appeal
Trump Slams ‘Election Interference’ And ‘Tyrannical Abuse Of Power’ After $364 Million Verdict; Vows To Appeal
Update (1840ET): Trump has responded to Judge Engoron’s decision, calling him a “crooked” judge who’s just committed election interference (and much, much more). Read below.
“A Crooked New York State Judge, working with a totally Corrupt Attorney General who ran on the basis of “I will get Trump,” before knowing anything about me or my company, has just fined me $355 Million based on nothing other than having built a GREAT COMPANY. ELECTION INTERFERENCE. WITCH HUNT (more to follow!),” said Trump in a post to Truth Social.
“The Justice System in New York State, and America as a whole, is under assault by partisan, deluded, biased Judges and Prosecutors. Racist, Corrupt A.G. Tish James has been obsessed with “Getting Trump” for years, and used Crooked New York State Judge Engoron to get an illegal, unAmerican judgment against me, my family, and my tremendous business. I helped New York City during its worst of times, and now, while it is overrun with Violent Biden Migrant Crime, the Radicals are doing all they can to kick me out….”
And according to the former president, Engoron conspired with New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“This Election Interference and tyrannical Abuse of Power by a Crooked Judge and Crooked Attorney General cannot be tolerated. My case was already won in the Appellate Division, and more than 80% of the frivolous claims were wiped out. Yet, as I suspected, and in order to hurt me and the Republican Party politically, Crooked and Corrupt Judge Arthur Engoron ignored his loss at the Appellate Division, and came up with an outrageous $355 Million Dollar fine against me. Using a statute that has never been applied like this before, the Corrupt Judge conspired with the Crooked Attorney General, Letitia James, and punished a liquid and beautiful Corporate Empire that started in New York, and has been successful all around the world…..
“There were no victims, and not one person testified there was any fraud. The actual witnesses established my Net Worth exceeded that reported in my Financial Statements as those Statements never included my most valuable Asset – the TRUMP Brand. The Highly Respected Expert Witness said my Financial Statements were among the best he has ever seen. I paid over $300 Million Dollars in taxes to New York City and State, and they want me gone. They are Crazed Lunatics who are destroying everything in their way. It all starts with Biden’s attacks on his Political Opponent!”
Trump also said he’d appeal Engoron’s decision.
“The actual bankers who were involved in the loan transactions testified I was a highly sought-after “whale” of a client with “one of the strongest personal balance sheets” they had ever seen, and I was overqualified for the loans. Those banks earned more than $100 Million Dollars in profits doing business with me and my companies. But to justify his crazed attack on me and my family, this biased, Trump Hating Judge, ignored all this, and even said Michael Cohen told the truth, although Cohen admitted to lying hundreds of times, and lied right in front of the Judge during the trial. This shocking and corrupt Interference in the Free Markets for political gain places every New York business transaction at risk. We must make sure Corrupt Politicians and Judges cannot continue to abuse the power of their office, and violate the public trust. We have already won, and will continue the fight on appeal!“
A breakdown of the fine via Bloomberg:
* * *
New York Judge Arthur Engoron has ordered former President Donald Trump to pay $364 million for allegedly defrauding banks in order to acquire loans and other benefits – loans which the banks themselves testified they were satisfied with after doing their own due diligence.
Trump is also barred “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years,” while his sons have been barred from serving as New York executives for two years.
BREAKING: A judge finds Donald Trump liable in his civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, fining him $364 million and prohibiting him from operations in the state for 3 years. pic.twitter.com/Wj8QLpRvy4
— Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) February 16, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
New York Attorney General Letitia James had sought $370 million from Trump, his company, and its top executives for what she claimed was “repeated and persistent fraud” – which included allegations of falsifying records and financial statements to the tune of as much as $2.2 billion.
Trump maintains that his financial statements to banks were conservative, and has called the case a “fraud on me.”
“This is a case that should have never been brought, and I think we should be entitled to damages,” Trump said on Jan. 11.
Following Friday’s decision, Trump’s attorneys hit back – calling it “manifest injustice” in a statement.
“This verdict is a manifest injustice – plain and simple”
Donald Trump’s legal team have issued a statement following the verdict which also bans Trump from running businesses in New York for three yearshttps://t.co/02spXph3ip
📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/wKX50VCJdy
— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 16, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The months–long civil trial included testimony from Trump and his oldest children. The former president was combative in his day on the stand, blasting James as a “hack” and calling the judge “extremely hostile.”
Trump repeatedly complained about Engoron before and throughout the trial, and the judge slapped him with a partial gag order after he started blasting the judge’s law clerk as well. Trump’s complaints led to a flood of death threats against the clerk, as well as Engoron, court officials said, and Trump was fined $15,000 for twice violating the order. -NBC News
During the trial, Deutsche Bank executive David Williams, who directly worked on at least one of several loans obtained by Trump over several decades, testified that it’s “atypical, but not entirely unusual” for a bank to internally slash a client’s stated asset values by 50% and approve a loan anyway, as they did with Trump, Bloomberg reported in November.
“It just depends on the circumstances,” said Williams, a managing director at the bank.
Deutsche Bank, which loaned hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump for properties in Miami, Chicago and Washington, cut his stated net worth in 2011 and 2012 from about $4.2 billion to $2.3 billion, according to internal bank credit memos. The same documents indicated the bank approved the loans anyway because it expected them to generate a profit based on Trump’s history of successful developments and other criteria.
Trump, who denies wrongdoing and claims the case is politically motivated, is calling to the stand this week four current and former Deutsche Bank employees — including the family’s former private banker Rosemary Vrablic — as part of his defense case, seeking to flip the script on the state’s version of events. -Bloomberg
The testimony undermined AG James’ premise, that Trump defrauded the German bank. But of course, none of that matters to Engoron – while Trump’s Martyr status just intensified.
Expect this decision to be reflected in upcoming polls.
This ruling is what’s criminal. https://t.co/ChopCG3rCP
— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) February 16, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
NEVER FORGET: The judge who fined Donald Trump $364 million laughed, smiled and smirked for the camera in court.
This isn’t about “justice” — These people are openly celebrating what they’re doing.
Disgusting.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 16, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 18:38 - The #1 Warning Sign Capital Controls Are Coming Soon & 4 Ways To Beat Them
The #1 Warning Sign Capital Controls Are Coming Soon & 4 Ways To Beat Them
Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,
Weekends and holidays are the perfect time to catch people off guard…
Like a street thug committing a mugging, capital controls blindside most people—otherwise, they wouldn’t be effective.
The government declares a surprise bank holiday and shuts all the banks—mere hours after they denied they were even thinking about such actions.
They impose capital controls to stop citizens from taking their money out of the country.
Cash-sniffing dogs, which make drug-sniffing dogs look friendly, show up at airports and border crossings.
At this point, your money is like a lobster in a trap. It doesn’t require much imagination to see what comes next.
Once a desperate government has your money within its reach, it’ll find a way to take as much of it as possible.
Don’t be surprised if your local currency suffers a massive devaluation, bank deposits are suddenly worth a fraction of what they were just yesterday, or the government imposes an emergency tax.
Whatever the method or pretext, the outcome is always the same: a wealth transfer from you to the government.
This familiar story has played out in many countries in recent years. The pattern is clear and should surprise no one the next time it happens.
It’s all but certain governments in financial trouble will turn to capital controls as a desperate, misguided solution—with devastating consequences for ordinary people.
Argentina, Lebanon, Venezuela, Iceland, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, China, India, South Korea, and governments in countless other countries have recently imposed capital.
The lesson from these examples is capital controls can happen anywhere and anytime.
Although it seems unthinkable to most, there is an excellent chance capital controls are coming to the US—they’ve happened before and could happen again soon.
Remember, in 1933, through Executive Order 6102, President Roosevelt forced Americans to exchange their gold for US dollars under penalty of 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine (or more than $235,000 in today’s debased confetti).
Of course, the official government gold exchange rate was unfavorable. It amounted to around a 41% confiscation of purchasing power.
The US government continued prohibiting private ownership of gold bullion for 42 years until they reluctantly allowed the plebs to own it again in 1975.
So, there is a clear historical precedent for implementing capital controls in the US, especially during a crisis.
Today, it’s self-evident the fiat currency system centered on the US dollar is crumbling at an alarming rate.
It’s been over 50 years since Nixon ushered in the fiat currency system by severing the dollar’s last link to gold in 1971.
The fiat currency system is long past the end of its shelf-life, like a carton of spoiled milk.
Even the global elites running the system can see that and openly talk about what they want to come next.
That’s why there’s all this talk about a “Great Reset,”… and without a doubt, capital controls will be part of it.
All it would take is a crisis—real or contrived—or some other pretext and the stroke of the president’s pen on a new executive order.
Expect it to happen.
Why and How Governments Impose Capital Controls
Capital controls are government restrictions on how people can use their money—something that should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in property rights and a free society.
Here’s how capital controls work…
Governments might allow people to buy foreign currency (or gold) only at an “official” rate that they set, which is always less favorable than the free-market rate. The difference between the fake official rate and the real free-market rate amounts to a wealth transfer to the government.
Another form of capital controls is steep taxes on international money transfers or purchasing foreign assets.
Governments could also flat-out prohibit ownership of foreign assets or moving any form of wealth outside the country.
No matter what flavor they come in, capital controls always help a government trap money within its borders so it’s easier for them to take.
A propaganda campaign is also necessary to gaslight people into believing such actions are required to protect the average person.
Expect politicians to make disingenuous claims to make them appear as saviors instead of aggressors.
The mainstream media will amplify this false narrative and demonize those opposed to capital controls as disloyal citizens or worse.
What Happens After Capital Controls
Capital controls are always a prelude to something worse.
That’s because once governments trap money inside a country, it’s probably only a matter of hours before there is wealth confiscation. Anything they don’t steal immediately, they box in for future thefts.
That’s why you must act BEFORE they impose capital controls.
How much time do you have?
While it’s impossible to know, acting well in advance is advisable. It’s better to be a year early than even a minute late.
However, there is one common feature I’ve noticed when countries impose capital controls that indicates the situation is imminent. It’s like someone waving a big fat red flag.
That warning sign is a government official denying that they are considering imposing capital controls.
Whenever you hear a central banker or politician say something won’t happen, you can almost be sure it will happen. And probably soon.
Coming from a bureaucrat, the real meaning of “no, of course not” is “it could happen tomorrow.”
It’s like the old saying: “Believe nothing until it has been officially denied.”
These deceptions have a purpose: Politicians and central bankers must surprise the public to get the desired results.
When you hear the official denial, you probably have only a matter of hours before they impose capital controls. Urgent action is required.
Four Ways To Beat Capital Controls
The solution is simple.
Place some of your savings outside your home country so it’s not trapped when the government imposes capital controls. It will be waiting for you safely on the other side.
Below are four ways you can do that.
-
First, obtain a foreign bank account. Capital controls imposed in your home country are unlikely to affect a bank account in another country.
-
Second, real estate in a foreign country is an excellent way to store significant capital abroad. Your home government won’t be able to seize it without a literal act of war.
-
Third, there’s Bitcoin, which enables anyone to send and receive value worldwide without relying on any third party.
-
Fourth, another solution is physical gold bullion coins held in a non-bank vault in a wealth-friendly foreign jurisdiction.
However, it’s crucial to emphasize that you should NOT put gold in a bank’s safe deposit box. They will be among the first targets if and when governments decide to declare a bank holiday and confiscate private wealth.
Holding the physical gold bullion in your own possession or a private non-bank vault in a wealth-friendly jurisdiction like Singapore, Switzerland, or the Cayman Islands is a good idea. (More on this below).
Conclusion
The current dollar-based monetary system is on its way out. Even the central bankers running the system can see that.
They are preparing for what comes next as they attempt to “reset” the system. It’s a virtual certainty they will impose capital controls.
I suspect it could all go down soon… and it won’t be pretty for most people.
We are likely on the cusp of a historic financial earthquake…
One that could alter the direction of the US forever and mark the biggest economic event of our lifetimes.
Yet few people are aware of what is happening.
And even fewer know how to prepare.
That’s exactly why legendary investor Doug Casey and I released an urgent video revealing the best way to store your gold.
In it, we uncover the best way to protect your savings capital controls and the coming wealth confiscations.
Capital controls are likely coming, and you won’t want to miss this crucial information. Click here to watch it now.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 18:20 -
- US Farmland Value Hits Record High Amid Tighter Credit Conditions
US Farmland Value Hits Record High Amid Tighter Credit Conditions
According to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, farmland values across the Midwest crop belt hit a record high in the fourth quarter despite elevated interest rates.
Farmland values in the region encompassing all of Iowa and most of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin increased by 6% compared to the previous year. Although this represents an increase from a 5% rise in the third quarter, the growth rate is notably slower than the 12% and 22% gains seen in the fourth quarters of 2022 and 2021, respectively.
An annual increase of 6 percent in the Seventh Federal Reserve District’s agricultural land values in 2023 helped them reach a new peak, though the yearly gain shrank to a single digit. Values for “good” farmland in the District moved up 2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023 from the third quarter, according to 129 agricultural bankers who responded to the January survey.
Only 6 percent of the survey respondents expected farmland values to rise during the January through March period of 2024, with 17 percent expecting them to fall and 77 percent expecting them to be stable
Farmland values
Annual real change in Seventh District farmland values
Record high farmland values
“For the third time in a row, there were fewer funds available for lending than in the same quarter of the prior year at survey respondents’ banks in the final quarter of 2023,” Fed economists David Oppedahl and Elizabeth Kepner wrote in the report.
The economists cited an Iowa banker who warned of “tough times ahead” for farmers.
A recent US Department of Agriculture forecast showed farmers are poised for another year of financial misery, facing the most significant decline in incomes in almost two decades as crop prices slide and US dominance in ag exports wanes.
A number of billionaires have been buying hard assets like farmland over the years (read: here & here & here & here).
Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/16/2024 – 18:00
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
