- Is The Middle East Beginning A Self-Correction?
Is The Middle East Beginning A Self-Correction?
Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
“Two years, three years, five years’ maximum from now, you will not recognize the same Middle East”, says the former Egyptian FM, Arab League Secretary General and Presidential Candidate, Amr Moussa, in an interview with Al-Monitor.
Mousa made some unexpected points, beyond warning of major change ahead (“the thing now is that the simple Arab man follows everything” – all the events). And in reference to the protests in Iraq, Moussa says that Iraq is in “a preparatory stage for them to choose their way as Iraqis — emphasizing that “the discord between Sunni and Shia is about to fade away.”
The present regional turbulence, he suggests, is [essentially] a reaction to the US playing the sectarian card – manipulating “the issues of sect and religion, et cetera, was not only a dangerous, but a sinister kind of policy”. He added however, “I don’t say that it will happen tomorrow, but [the discord between Sunnis and the Shi’a fading away], will certainly happen in the foreseeable future, which will reflect on Lebanon too.”
What we are witnessing in Iraq and Lebanon, he adds, “are these things correcting themselves. It will take time, but they will correct themselves. Iraq is a big country in the region, no less than Iran, no less than Turkey. Iraq is a country to reckon with. I don’t know whether this was the reason why it had to be destroyed. Could be. But there are forces in Iraq that are being rebuilt … Iraq will come back. And this phase – what we see today, perhaps this is the — what can I say? A preparatory stage?”
Of course, these comments – coming from a leading Establishment Sunni figure – will appear stunningly counter-intuitive to those living outside the region, where the MSM narrative – from Colombia to Gulf States – is that the current protests are sectarian, and directed predominantly at Hizbullah and Iran. Certainly there is a thread of iconoclasm to this global ‘Age of Anger’, targeting all leaderships, everywhere. In these tempestuous times, of course, the world reads into events what it hopes and expects to see. Moussa calls such sectarian ‘framing’ both dangerous and “sinister”.
But look rather, at the core issue on which practically all Lebanese demonstrators concur: It is that the cast-iron sectarian ‘cage’ (decreed initially by France, and subsequently ‘corrected’ by Saudi Arabia at Taif, to shift economic power into the hands of the Sunnis), is the root cause to the institutionalised, semi-hereditary corruption and mal-governance that has infected Lebanon.
Is this not precisely articulated in the demand for a ‘technocratic government’ – that is to say in the demand for the ousting of all these hereditary sectarian Zaim in a non-sectarian articulation of national interests. Of course, being Lebanon, one tribe will always be keener for one, rather than another, sectarian leader to be cast as villain to the piece. The reality is, however, that technocratic government exactly is a break from Taif – even if the next PM is nominally Sunni (but yet not partisan Sunni)?
And just for clarity’s sake: An end to the compartmentalised sectarian constitution is in Hizbullah’s interest. The Shi’i – the largest minority in Lebanon – were always given the smallest slice of the national cake, under the sectarian divide.
What is driving this sudden focus on ‘the flawed system’ in Lebanon – more plausibly – is simply, hard reality. Most Lebanese understand that they no longer possess a functional economy. Its erstwhile ‘business model’ is bust.
Lebanon used to have real exports – agricultural produce exported to Syria and Iraq, but that avenue was closed by the war in Syria. Lebanon’s (legal) exports today effectively are ‘zilch’, but it imports hugely (thanks to having an artificially high Lebanese pound). All this – i.e. the resulting trade, and government budget deficit – used to be balanced out by the large inward flow of dollars.
Inward remittances from the 8 – 9 million Lebanese living overseas was one key part – and dollar deposits arriving in Lebanon’s once ‘safe-haven’ banking system was the other. But that ‘business model’ effectively is bust. The remittances have been fading for years, and the Banking system has the US Treasury crawling all over it (looking for sanctionable Hizbullah accounts).
Which brings us back to that other key point made by Moussa, namely, that the Iraqi disturbances are, in his view, “a preparatory stage for them to choose their way as Iraqis … and that will reflect on Lebanon too”.
If the ‘model’ – either economically or politically – is systemically bust, then tinkering will not do. A new direction is required.
Look at it this way: Sayyed Nasrallah has noted in recent days that other alternatives for Lebanon to a US alignment are possible, but have not yet consolidated into a definitive alternative. That option, in essence, is to ‘look East’: to Russia and China.
It makes sense: At one level, an arrangement with Moscow might untie a number of ‘knots’: It could lead to a re-opening of trade, through Syria, into Iraq for Lebanon’s agricultural produce; it could lead to a return of Syrian refugees out from Lebanon, back to their homes; China could shoulder the Economic Development plan, at a fraction of its projected $20 billion cost – and, above all it could avoid the ‘poison pill’ of a wholesale privatisation of Lebanese state assets on which the French are insisting. In the longer term, Lebanon could participate in the trade and ‘energy corridor’ plans that Russia and China have in mind for the norther tier of the Middle East and Turkey. At least, this alternative seems to offer a real ‘vision’ for the future. Of course, America is threatening Lebanon with horrible consequences – for even thinking of ‘looking East’.
On the other hand, at a donors’ conference at Paris in April, donors pledged to give Lebanon $11bn in loans and grants – but only if it implements certain ‘reforms’. The conditions include a commitment to direct $7 bn towards privatising government assets and state property – as well as austerity measures such as raising taxes, cutting public sector wages and reducing social services.
Great! But how will this correct Lebanon’s broken ‘business model’? Answer: It would not. Devaluation of the Lebanese pound (almost inevitable, and implying big price rises) and further austerity will not either make Lebanon again a financial safe-haven, nor boost income from remittances. It is the classic misery recipe, and one which leaves Lebanon in the hands of external creditors.
Paris has taken on the role of advancing this austerity agenda by emphasising that only a cabinet acceptable to the creditors will do, to release crucial funds. It seems that France believes that it is sufficient to introduce reforms, impose the rule of law and build the institutions – in order to Gulliverise Hizbullah. This premise of US or Israeli acquiescence to this Gulliverisation plan – seems questionable.
The issue for Aoun must be the potential costs that the US might impose – extending even to the possible exclusion Lebanese banks from the dollar clearing system (i.e. the infamous US Treasury neutron bomb). Washington is intent more on pushing Lebanon to the financial brink, as hostage to its (i.e. Israel’s) demand that Hizbullah be disarmed, and its missiles destroyed. It might misjudge, however, and send Lebanon over the brink into the abyss.
But President Aoun, or any new government, cannot disarm Hizbullah. But Israel’s newly ambiguous strategic situation (post – Abqaiq), will likely hike the pressures on Lebanon to act against Hizbullah, through one means or another. Were Aoun or his government to try to mitigate the US pressures through acquiescence to the ‘reform’ package, would that be the end to it? Where would it all end, for Lebanon?
And it is a similar conundrum in Iraq: The economic situation though, is quite different. Iraq has one-fifth of the population of neighbouring Iran, but five times the daily oil sales. Yet the infrastructure of its cities, following the two wars, is still a picture of ruination and poverty. The wealth of Iraq is stolen, and sits in bank accounts abroad. In Iraq, it is primarily the political model that is bust, and needs to be re-cast.
Is this Moussa’s point – that Iraq presently is in the preparatory stage of choosing a new path ahead? He describes it as a self-correcting process leading out from the fissures of sectarianism. Conventional Washington thinking however, is that Iran seeks only a Shi’i hegemony for Iraq. But that is a misreading: Iran’s policy is much more nuanced. It is not some sectarian hegemony that is its objective, but the more limited aim to have the strategic edge across the region – in an amorphous, ambiguous, and not easily defined way – so that a fully sovereign Iraq becomes able to push-back against Israel and the US – deniably, and well short of all-out war.
This is the point: the end to sectarianism is an Iranian interest, and not sectarian hegemony.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/19/2019 – 02:00 - Egypt Risks US Sanctions If It Finalizes $20BN Deal For Russian Warplanes
Egypt Risks US Sanctions If It Finalizes $20BN Deal For Russian Warplanes
As Russia’s defense tech sector continues attracting interest from countries across Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Washington increasingly finds itself in the awkward position of having to threaten and cajole its own regional allies.
Reuters reports of the latest instance: “The United States could impose sanctions on Egypt and block it from future military sales if it goes ahead with a purchase of Russian warplanes, a U.S. official said on Monday.”
Last Spring Cairo and Moscow first unveiled an agreement on the sale to Egypt of “more than twenty” Sukhoi Su-35 heavyweight multirole fighters. Image via AIN Online This after Egypt signed an agreement to purchase more than 20 Su-35 fighter jets from the Kremlin in a $2 billion deal.
The US has previously threatened other countries with sanctions under its Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for purchases of Russian military equipment (Serbia being the latest, related to rumors that it’s mulling S-400 anti-air acquirement).
Cairo eyeing the advanced Russian fighter might be viewed as an especially insulting affront by the Trump administration especially given that as the second largest recipient of foreign aid historically (after Israel), Washington has provided billions in economic and military aid to Egypt over the past years, including its F-16 fighters.
As with other countries that deploy new Russian weapons systems, Turkey foremost on the list, there’s concern over the ability to engage in joint exercises with NATO militaries, specifically related to fears of exposure of American and NATO defense tech secrets.
Needless to say a major breach between Egypt and the United States hasn’t occurred for decades, as it’s not secret that Washington needs to prop up its military ‘deep state’ for sake of keeping the long term peace agreement with neighboring Israel.
Currently, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also said to be expressing interest in Russian defense purchases, namely the S-400.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/19/2019 – 01:00 - The Rise Of Tech Totalitarianism
The Rise Of Tech Totalitarianism
Authored by James Kirkpatrick,
The Wall Street Journal just published a shocking expose, How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results, [by Kirsten Grind, Sam Schechner, Robert McMillan and John West , November 15, 2019], revealing not only that Google is exploiting its market power in ways the clearly raise anti-trust questions, but also that it shadow-bans sites that promote “hate or violence” even if “expressed in polite or even academic-sounding language”—i.e. VDARE.com and all immigration patriots. This confirms the terrifying message of Michael Rectenwald’s new book Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom: the combination of Woke Capital and monopoly power is turning America into an open-air prison.
Rectenwald is a liberal academic who was chased out of New York University for dissenting mildly from the “pronoun wars” and the Leftist demand for blanket approval of transgenderism [I was a liberal NY prof, but when I said the left was going too far, colleagues called be a NAZI & treated me like a RUSSIAN SPY, RT, November 12, 2019]. In his book, he shows the Left is consumed by collective hysteria, a theme with which VDARE.com readers are familiar, and also that the ideology of “Corporate Socialism” and the emerging “Internet of Things” is making it impossible to escape from a repressive system.
Rectenwald lays out several terms that encapsulate his ideas—the eponymous Google Archipelago, Big Digital, Corporate Socialism, Google Marxism, etc.
-
The “Google Archipelago” is “the corporate leftist centralized system of Big Digital.”
-
“Big Digital” is the “mega-data services, media, cable, and internet services, social media platforms, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Agents, apps, and the developing Internet of Things” [the increasing ability and dependence of ordinary applications of operating online].
-
“Corporate Socialism” is an economic and political system under which a private monopoly or private oligopolies rather than that state eliminates competition and controls all production.
-
“Google Marxism”—originally a concept developed by George Gilder, who argued that Google assumed like Marx that the contemporary mode of production is the ultimate mode, with the only remaining issues are questions of distribution.
Rectenwald adds further that Google Marxism, “like “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” manifests as state-supported monopoly capitalism, and “actually existing socialism” [meaning the actual economic conditions that exist, rather than the “free markets” or “democracy” that are claimed to exist] for everyone else.
It’s an unclear definition and he occasionally links it with corporate socialism. But basically what he’s getting at is that Google commands the flow of information and uses this control to further its ideological and commercial objectives, which are often the same thing
In fact, Rectenwald’s concepts often overlap each other, and the recurring academic jargon may baffle the reader who hasn’t read his Foucault.
Yet his three major themes are easy to identify.
The first major theme: the promotion of far-Left social causes through major corporations.
As New York Times token conservative columnist Ross Douthat has noted, Woke Capital offers consumers symbolic rather than economic values. [The Rise of Woke Capital, NYT, February 28, 2018] Rectenwald calls these “rhetorical placebos in lieu of costlier economic concessions”—placebos which incidentally support “the elite’s agendas of identity politics, gender pluralism, transgenderism, lax immigration standards, sanctuary cities, and so on.” Rectenwald suggests this may be an effort by corporations to avoid higher taxes and regulations.
However, he also suggests a deeper ideological agenda, citing the recent notorious Gillette ad deconstructing masculinity. It turns out the co-founder of Gillette, King Camp Gillette (1855-1932, right) was also a “socialist utopian,” who railed against competition and dreamed of creating a “World Corporation.” Thus instead of the masses seizing the means of production, companies would continuously merge, eventually creating a “great Corporate Mind” that would have “life everlasting” and “all knowledge of all men.”
Gillette’s wild ravings seem uncannily accurate when it comes to
the second major theme: the emerging total control over human information possessed by Big Tech.
Users voluntarily provide data to corporations like Google and Facebook, which they can sell to advertisers. (Mark Zuckerberg himself referred to his trusting subscribers who had done this as “dumb f***s”.) They know us better than we know ourselves.
At the same time, these “private” corporations can also distort what information is provided to users and determine who can compete in the digital marketplace. And because of corporations’ “authoritarian Leftism,” this means that conservatives and patriots can be deplatformed, competitors to Establishment media removed, and Big Tech left in control the “public space” even while being technically “private.” In short, tech companies are taking on governmental roles.
Instead of the Internet freeing discussion, Rectenwald notes accurately that we’re witnessing “the disappearance of public discursive space.” Speech outside the digital sphere is irrelevant, but who can speak inside is determined by companies that practice “blatant double standards, egregious bias, politically-motivated designations of ‘fake news,’ and tilted search engine algorithms.”
In Rectenwald’s striking phrase, tech companies “have acted like referees of a game in which they are also players, taking sides in political contests and the culture wars.”
Naturally, this also means being able to massively manipulate election results by controlling the flow of information and deplatforming independent voices. This could mean that any “democratic vote” is essentially fake and illegitimate, because the outcome is determined in advance. Real political power is found not in Congress or the voting booth, but within the search algorithms and among the moderators of Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram.
This is obviously the area most relevant to readers, because VDARE.com and other sites have directly felt the cost of Big Tech censorship. Tulsi Gabbard is directly attacking Big Tech for its control over Americans’ freedom of speech.
Yet President Trump has done little to address these problems. In fact, the president’s much touted NAFTA replacement actually provides Big Tech with additional protections by specifically allowing companies to censor based on political views. His “Social Media Summit” didn’t feature anyone who had actually been banned [Trump’s Pathetic ‘Social Media Summit,’ by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, July 16, 2019].
The Trump Administration isn’t serious about this. But if it doesn’t get serious in the time that’s left, defeat in 2020 is practically guaranteed.
The third major theme: Rectenwald argues that we are entering an age of practically unlimited tyranny, because we will be required to operate in a digital space endlessly patrolled by far-Left radicals.
Instead of an “Internet specially designed for individual expression and liberation,” the Internet is reshaping us, mutilating individuals “fit to inhabit it.” “Google Marxism” is destroying individual expression and creating a hive mind.
This will accelerate when the “Internet of Things” truly takes off and every application will be required to operate in an online space, with the “Internet ubiquitous, coextensive with the world at large.” We will never “go online” we will always be operating in cyberspace.
“The Internet is not imprisoned,” Rectenwald writes, “but it may become a prison, and once liberated, the world at large might become a digital gulag.”
This may sound dystopian science fiction. But in some ways it has already occurred. Under China’s social credit system, individuals can be tracked in the “real world” and the services they use and rights they possess are dependent on their standing within the digital system.
Consider also the drive towards cashless societies and its potential for tyranny.
Now imagine how such a system would work within the U.S.. Imagine if every time you tried to make a purchase, use an appliance, or engage with someone, the other person or company had instant access to the information Facebook, Google, and other “Big Data” wanted them to have.
Certain individuals would essentially be cut off from social life. You would be technically “free” to speak or operate a business, but cut off from the digital marketplace, your legal rights and economic viability would be essentially non-existent. There would also be no way out of the system, because everyone and everything, everywhere, would always be connected to the network.
Rectenwald examines the implications of Artificial Intelligence, particularly the way such systems are developing to predict human behavior. He expresses concern not just about the somewhat fantastic prospect of “’robot swarms’ gone awry, but the more fundamental question of whether humans will simply keep outsourcing decision-making to algorithms and AI.
Entire industries and basic human functions could presumably be performed more efficiently and effectively by AI. Furthermore, when it comes to distribution of resources, a sufficiently developed AI would be capable of “identifying, tracking, surveilling, algorithmically steering, digitally jailing, and ultimately controlling populations to degrees that would have made Stalin or Mao green with envy.” One possible future: a “docile, algorithmically-directed or even algorithmically-dictated populace, one that is unemployed and probably living on a Universal Basic Incomebecause their labor is unnecessary.”
This raises the deepest questions. What does democracy, citizenship, or identity mean under such a system?
And while all this may sound bizarre, consider how you, the reader, already live in such a way to avoid negative mentions of your name online. Already, we live are in a system where a single media attack, magnified by social media companies that promote certain stories and suppress others, can shape a person’s entire life.
The ancient bonds of family, church, nation and law are as nothing in the face of a systemic digital assault. An individual’s ability to hold a job is already heavily dependent on Google results. What happens when there are no more escapes? What happens when everyone, everywhere, receives the information the elite wants them to know, even if it’s “fake news?”
This is unlimited tyranny. It also reduces each person into simply a part of a centrally directed System. One can already glimpse the bars of the emerging digital cage.
The solution? Conservatives must rethink their opposition to “the state” and realize the real threat to our liberties comes from Big Tech, not “Big Government.”
In the time that’s left, conservatives who value their faith and identity and progressives who don’t want to exist as mere corporate puppets must unite to guarantee free speech online. There should also be more systemic regulation, if not wholesale breaking up, of social media companies.
If we don’t do these things, contemporary China will seem like a libertarian utopia compared to what’s coming.
And thanks to Rectenwald, we can’t say we weren’t warned.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 23:45 -
- World Trade Barometer Suggests Global Economy Continues To Plunge As Trade War Takes Toll
World Trade Barometer Suggests Global Economy Continues To Plunge As Trade War Takes Toll
The World Trade Organization (WTO) published a new report Monday that warns global merchandise trade in goods will plunge through this quarter amid no resolution to the trade war, along with the continuation of a worldwide synchronized slowdown that shows no signs of abating in the near term.
The Geneva-based intergovernmental organization’s leading-indicator called the Goods Trade Barometer printed at 96.6 for Sept., down from 95.7 in Jun. Readings under 100 recommend below-trend expansion is present.
In Sept., WTO economists downgraded global trade growth expectations for 2019 to 1.2 %, down from a 2.6% forecast in Apr.
The deceleration of slowing global growth was attributed to “increased tariffs, Brexit-related uncertainty, and the shifting monetary policy stance in developed economies,” WTO analysts said.
Year-on-year growth in world merchandise trade volume has stalled in recent quarters, as new evidence shows a decline could be seen in early 2020.
Airfreight, electronic components, and raw materials “have all deteriorated further below trend,” the report showed.
“Indices for export orders (97.5), automotive products (99.8), and container shipping (100.8) have firmed up into on-trend territory. However, the indices for international air freight (93.0), electronic components (88.2), and raw materials (91.4) have all deteriorated further below trend. Electronic components trade was weakest of all, possibly reflecting recent tariff hikes affecting the sector.”
And with world trade sinking quick into year-end, the Baltic Exchange’s main sea freight index has just tagged a 4-1/2 month low on sluggish vessel demand.
While the global economy implodes, a rally in global risk assets continues to push US equities to new highs. This is due to central banks pumping a tsunami of liquidity into stocks, in the attempt to save the world from a global trade recession that could be around the corner, if not already here. The biggest threat today as central bankers pump stocks, is that the real economies across the world remain stagnant, which could suggest risk assets are in blowoff tops.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 23:25 - Globalist-Endorsed War-On-Cash May Be China's Next Terrifying Weapon
Globalist-Endorsed War-On-Cash May Be China’s Next Terrifying Weapon
Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,
Recent protests in Hong Kong, along with the resulting fall out from international corporations questioned for their relationships with mainland China, has placed a renewed focus on the authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist Party. This has led to several articles identifying ways in which Western countries have learned from the CCP, including Europe’s growing embrace of web censorship and growing interest in the social credit system rolled out in 2018. Given that it wasn’t that long ago that it was common to see Western leaders and neoliberal commentators openly envy aspects of the Chinese political system, these concerns are certainly worth exploring. What should be of equal interest, however, is the ways China may be learning from the West.
The next weapon the CCP may plan to wield against its citizens is a War on Cash.
As Joseph Salerno, among others, has noted for years now, a successful War on Cash would represent a new escalation in government’s long history of weaponizing currency against the population. Moving far beyond the clipping of coins as a means of stealth tax collection, the purpose of a War on Cash is not simply to strengthen a government’s grasp on the wealth of its citizens – but the move becomes a highly effective means of tracking any who find themselves in the crosshairs of the state.
These features make a cashless society attractive for any government – which explains why it has become an increasingly popular goal for politicians, bureaucrats, and central bankers in the West. This is precisely why we’ve seen the cause promoted from such influential economists as Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist of the IMF, Marvin Goodfriend, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon who was once nominated to the Fed by Donald Trump, as well as various economic ministers. The governments of Australia and Sweden have made a cashless society an explicit policy goal within their countries, while some central banks — such as the ECB — have begun phasing out higher denomination bills as an opening move in their own cashless campaigns.
Of course, the international perspective of the Swedish government is quite different than that of China’s — and understandably so. For all of Sweden’s issues, there are no comparisons to the CCP’s brutal child policies or its treatment of religious minorities. What should be understood, however, is that a successful move to a cashless society would give the Swedish government similar tools over its population as those the Communist Party seeks over its dominion. While the former may ground their policy aims in “combating drug trafficking” and “convenience,” the end result in both cases is a new terrifying weapon in the hands of the state.
Luckily, it’s easier for the government to desire a cashless society than it is to create it, and we’ve seen countries like Sweden rethink their approach. There is reason to think that China may be less apprehensive. Not only is the government more powerful, but it is also more desperate.
Given the surveillance power of a cashless society, the potential of joining a social credit system with a digital yuan makes sense. What’s just as important for China is to help further tighten the CCP’s grip on its struggling economy.
As I’ve noted before, lost in the attention paid to Trump’s trade war with China, China’s financial system is showing signs of a growing strain. Not only have we seen escalating bank failures and the creation of new bailout devices for failing firms, but some companies have resorted to paying their workers with IOUs as they run short on cash. Meanwhile, Chinese local governments are now defaulting on debts to contractors. Given the importance of economic growth to the CCP’s control of the country, its understandable why we’ve seen President Xi forge new high-tech weapons to be used against the population.
Interestingly, China’s desperation is being confused by some as a sign of strength. For example, some have misunderstood the underlying motives for the CCP’s renewed interest in cryptocurrency.
While much has been made of Chinese media giving Bitcoin a front-page treatment, the tight control the CCP has over its financial system makes actual use of private crypto extremely difficult. Instead, the stage is being set for moving the yuan to the blockchain. While some have sold this as some novel challenge against the dollar — even suggesting that the Bank of China could try to peg it to gold — this is, as Daniel Lacalle explained, a delusion.
This is not a trump card to be used against Uncle Sam, but a new tool of CCP oppression against is own people. As noted by Jason Burack, a market analyst that has been closely following Chinese economic news, “throughout history, governments have always hijacked technology and used it for nefarious purposes.”
At this point, the CCP successfully waging a War on Cash is mere speculation — though a recent move to allow tourists access to digital payment systems such as AliPay might help pave the way for that transition. It would be a policy change very much in character with the authoritarian regime in Beijing — and one that has long been sold as “benign” by the more “liberal” globalist elite.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 23:05 - Baltimore Taxpayers Fund Lyft-Rides For Inner-City Poor Facing "Food Deserts"
Baltimore Taxpayers Fund Lyft-Rides For Inner-City Poor Facing “Food Deserts”
With more than a quarter of all Baltimore City residents living in a food desert, meaning there’s no supermarket in a walkable distance, the taxpayers are now funding a new program that will pay for their Lyft ride to the grocery store.
Starting Monday, residents in South and West Baltimore City, some of the most impoverished areas in the country, can register online for Lyft and get government-subsidized trips to participating grocery stores, reported The Baltimore Sun.
The pilot program will sponsor up to 200 residents, will cover one-way rides up to $2.50. Each rider can take as many as eight trips per month.
“Whoa, that is lovely,” Evelyn Robinson told The Sun. “I wouldn’t have to wait for someone to be available to take me or pay as much money. I could go whenever I wanted.”
For some more color on South and West Baltimore City, these areas are low-income neighborhoods, about 33% of households don’t even own vehicles, and most folks have negative net wealth. Many don’t have jobs because the local economy has been stuck in a depression for twenty years.
Both areas are equivalent to a third-world country and have the highest per-capita homicide rates in the country.
Instead of supermarkets on each corner of the street, there are liquor stores and methadone clinics.
To be fair, decades of deindustrialization trends have turned many parts of Baltimore into a Venezuelan-like warzone — not entirely the fault of citizens but the failure of the political class and Washington who’ve neglected the implosion of the city over the decades.
The subsidized Lyft program will also roll out in about a dozen other cities to shuttle low-income folks to grocery stores.
In the first six months of operation, Baltimore taxpayers are expected to shell out $73,000.
“This innovative ride-share pilot not only helps residents get to and from the grocery store but also reduces travel time and puts money back into the pockets of low-income residents so they are able to buy more healthy foods,” Democratic Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young said in a statement.
More than 146,000 Baltimore City residents live in food deserts, and approximately 124,500 of those residents are African Americans.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 22:45 - Landmark Bill Would Bar State From Enforcing Federal Red-Flag Gun Laws
Landmark Bill Would Bar State From Enforcing Federal Red-Flag Gun Laws
Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,
A bill prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate would prohibit state enforcement of any federal “red-flag” laws, setting the foundation to nullify any such laws in practice and effect.
Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) filed Senate Bill 1081 (SB1081) for introduction in the 2020 legislative session. Under the proposed law, the Oklahoma legislature would “occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way federal or state extreme risk protection orders against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. “ In effect, only the Oklahoma legislature could pass any type of so-called red-flag law effective in the Sooner State.
The legislation also would declare that any federal red-flag law “which would infringe upon a citizen’s Constitutionally-protected rights including, but not limited to the right to due process, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech, shall be null, void, unenforceable and of no effect in the state of Oklahoma.”
These declarations would have very little effect in practice, but SB1081 includes provisions that would make federal red-flag laws nearly impossible to enforce in Oklahoma. The proposed law would prohibit any Oklahoma agency or any political subdivision from accepting any federal grants to implement any federal statute, rule or executive order, federal or state judicial order or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma.
It would also make it a felony offense for any individual, including a law enforcement officer, to enforce a federal red flag law. In effect, this would bar state and local police from enforcing a federal red-flag law.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Enforcing a red-flag law would be no different.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with federal gun control would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in the implementation and enforcement of a federal red flag law, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”
LEGAL BASIS
The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”
WHAT’S NEXT
SB1081 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the Oklahoma legislature convenes on Feb. 2.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 22:25 - "Biggest Fire Loss In Fort Lauderdale History:" Two Mega Yachts Worth $24 Million Ignite In Fiery Blaze
“Biggest Fire Loss In Fort Lauderdale History:” Two Mega Yachts Worth $24 Million Ignite In Fiery Blaze
Two large superyachts in a Fort Lauderdale marina on Sunday burned to the ground as dozens of firefighters worked for hours to contain the blaze.
Fort Lauderdale Battalion Chief Stephen Gollan told Sun-Sentinel that the yachts were valued at $24 million and were the “biggest fire loss in Fort Lauderdale history.”
Gollan said the cause of the fire is unknown, but said the yachts were docked in the marina, pending renovation work.
“We haven’t even begun the investigation yet,” Gollan told the Sun-Sentinel Sunday night. “[Monday] morning we plan to go in with ourselves and other resources from [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] and begin our investigation.” he added.
Gollan said the fire broke out early Sunday morning on Trinity Yachts, a 161-foot superyacht, worth around $12 to $16 million.
Northwestern winds at the time of the incident spread the fire to an adjacent 107-foot Christensen yacht, valued around $6 to $7 million.
Over 60 firefighters from several different fire departments fought the fire on both yachts for 5 hours on Sunday morning.
A dramatic video of the fire was posted on the Fort Lauderdale Fire Reserve’s Facebook page.
“At 04:30 on Saturday November 16th, FLFR crews responded to a report of two large yachts on fire in the 2500 block of State Road 84. Upon arrival the fire was located at Universal Marine on the docks closest to the New River.
Due to the large volume of fire and the difficulty of access, a second alarm was immediately requested. Over the next five hours more than 60 fire fighters and 3 fire boats would battle this blaze, preventing it from spreading to other yachts in the marine.
Thankfully no one was injured during this intense fire,” the fire department said.
Gollan said investigators would be reviewing video surveillance on Monday to see if the fire was intentionally set. He said if the fire turns out to be an accident — it would be tough to determine the cause considering the significant damage on both vessels.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 22:05 - Sorry CNN, Here's 25 Times Trump Has Been 'Dangerously Hawkish' On Russia
Sorry CNN, Here’s 25 Times Trump Has Been ‘Dangerously Hawkish’ On Russia
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled “25 times Trump was soft on Russia”, in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case that the US president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or failed to say other words; “Trump has repeatedly praised Putin”, “Trump refused to say Putin is a killer”, “Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016”, “Trump made light of Russian hacking”, etc. It also includes the completely false but oft-repeated narrative that “Trump’s team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine”, as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly invalidated claim that “Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.”
NEW ANALYSIS: We tallied 25 times Trump was SOFT ON RUSSIA. Examples: He praised Putin. Denied Russian meddling. Said Russia can keep Crimea. Reluctant to impose new sanctions. Attacked NATO. Congratulated Putin’s election. Withdrew from Syria. (1/4) https://t.co/3gWqYMjHwS
— Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) November 17, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
CNN’s 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing, it’s clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being “soft” on Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he’s been doing so with zero resistance from either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it’s a fact that neither of America’s two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump’s opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance toward Russia
Nuclear Posture Review puts Russia firmly in crosshairs https://t.co/wBfJInldD3 pic.twitter.com/vAsxaPkU66
— Defense News (@defense_news) February 2, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Last year Trump’s Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which CNN itself called “its toughest line yet against Russia’s resurgent nuclear forces.”
“In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia,” CNN reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapons, which, because they are designed to be more “usable” than conventional nuclear ordinances, have been called “the most dangerous weapon ever” by critics of this insane policy. These weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2. Arming Ukraine
For years, neocons and arms industry darlings like @RepAdamSchiff have sought to re-arm Ukraine and escalate the conflict in Donbas. By stirring up Russiagate, they finally got their deadly deal. My latest: https://t.co/pyJB4btOSk
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 8, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was introduced by the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time Uthat this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn’t hawkish enough to also do was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there is no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in Venezuela
Russia accused the United States of promoting regime change in Venezuela, warning of the “catastrophic” consequences of destabilizing one of the Kremlin’s key South American allies https://t.co/FMfPkYUPfM
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 24, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day. Trump’s attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians.
Trump has reportedly spoken frequently of a US military invasion to oust Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, provoking a forceful rebuke from Moscow.
“Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military interference look particularly disquieting,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said. “We warn against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences.”
5. Withdrawing from the INF treaty
Russia’s Vladimir Putin has said America’s latest missile test has raised new threats and will warrant a response from Moscow.
The missile test on Sunday would have been banned under a now-defunct arms treaty.
Read more: https://t.co/c1f1Lxulto pic.twitter.com/D8xpwD3W6h
— Sky News (@SkyNews) August 22, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
For a president who’s “soft” on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to declare that “the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war.” It appears entirely possible that Trump will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South Korea can compete with the US in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
“The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to conduct reconnaissance flights over one another’s territories,” The Wall Street Journal reported last month, adding that the administration has alleged that “Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while using its missions to gather intelligence in the US.”
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
“US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said,” Sputnik reports.
“All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for the whole humanity,” Patrushev said.
“In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital development,” he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
Poland signs $4.75 billion deal for U.S. Patriot missile system facing Russia https://t.co/iKsr46mhHq pic.twitter.com/eDWUkrMuz2
— Reuters (@Reuters) March 28, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with the United States to buy Raytheon Co’s Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia,” Reuters reported last year.
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the nation’s oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the nation’s government of that financial resource. Syria’s ally Russia strongly opposes this, accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of “international state banditry”.
“In a statement, Russia’s defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not motivated by genuine security concerns in the region,” Reuters reported last month.
“Therefore Washington’s current actions — capturing and maintaining military control over oil fields in eastern Syria — is, simply put, international state banditry,” Russia’s defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and hundreds, but whatever the exact number the US military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in Estonia
US Tanks, Troops Arrive In Estonia As Part Of NATO Anti-Russia Build Up https://t.co/lwCww5UkC7 #tlot #ronpaul pic.twitter.com/ZlspSAtpon
— Ron Paul News (@RonPaulNews) February 7, 2017
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Within weeks of taking office, Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other military hardware right up to Russia’s border as part of a NATO operation.
“Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America’s dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention in Ukraine,” the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black Sea
The US Navy is ramping up its presence in the Black Sea as part of a bid to counter Russia’s increased presence there, a US military official tells CNN https://t.co/ZlfdLqUbQy pic.twitter.com/rBi7j3X1sL
— CNN (@CNN) February 20, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures,” CNN reported at the time. “Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill’s passage drew ire from Moscow — which responded by stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country — all but crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin had called for.”
“A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia,” said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in response.
13. More sanctions
“The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia,” The New York Times reported in December 2017.
14. Still more sanctions
Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet https://t.co/tLdMjAVbt7 via @vicenews pic.twitter.com/qGFBx5MbPU
— …By The Way ☕☕ (@_MrDavidJones) April 6, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet,” reads a Vice headline from April of last year.
“The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank,” Vice reports. “While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia’s role in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures seek to penalize Russia’s recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern Ukraine.”
15. Even more sanctions
The Trump administration hit Russia with more sanctions for the alleged Skripal poisoning in August of last year, then hit them with another round of sanctions for the same reason again in August of this year.
16. Guess what? MORE sanctions
Each new round of sanctions on Russia is an opportunity to remind ourselves that serious pundits & cable news hosts have openly posited — like, not just pondered in their in minds or anonymous chat rooms — that Trump is a Kremlin operative and/or subjected to Kremlin blackmail: https://t.co/DdS89M76Mj
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 8, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and entities in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea,” The Hill reported in November of last year. “The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S. says Russia seized illegally in 2014.”
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
“Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a vessel,” reads a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18. Secondary sanctions
Secondary sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The US has leveled sanctions against both China and Turkey for purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as foreign agents
Both RT and Sputnik have been forced to register as “foreign agents” by the Trump administration. This classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20. Throwing out Russian diplomats
Worst. Putin Puppet. Ever.
“Isn’t it weird how when you ignore the narratives being promoted by both sides and just look at the raw behavior, being a ‘Putin puppet’ looks exactly the same as being a dangerously aggressive Russia hawk?”#Russia #diplomatshttps://t.co/7t2w89ZOuC
— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) March 27, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the UK.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters “to resist Russian aggression”
“US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service officials,” Army Times reported this past July.
“U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014,” Army Times writes. “A low-level conflict continues to simmer in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty, national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian aggression and even occupation.”
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation
@SecPompeo : Crimea is Ukraine pic.twitter.com/fv26jKeR7Q
— Political-Military Affairs, US Dept of State (@StateDeptPM) February 27, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
…even while acknowledging Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights as perfectly legal and legitimate.
23. Sending 1,000 troops to Poland
From the September article “1000 US Troops Are Headed to Poland” by National Interest:
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States’ commitment to protecting Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially, Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump’s destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said it was “deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”, adding that this administration’s actions were “trampling on the norms of international law”.
25. Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump threatened sanctions over Merkel’s continued support for a gas pipeline from Russia https://t.co/4RJ2jnl2Us via @josh_wingrove pic.twitter.com/9X53Wdx8gE
— Stuart Wallace (@StuartLWallace) June 13, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
“Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said he’s looking at sanctions to block the project he’s warned would leave Berlin ‘captive’ to Moscow,” Bloomberg reports. “The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany.”
“We’re protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany” for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that’s my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn’t benefit anyone’s partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain as can be, but there’s a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that’s how different narrative is from fact; there’s almost no connection. Instead they use a light sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the greater the probability of that happening. We’re rolling the dice on armageddon every single day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the US and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 21:45 - Is This Boeing Blowback Or Anger At Lack Of Support For Aramco?
Is This Boeing Blowback Or Anger At Lack Of Support For Aramco?
On the second day of the Dubai Airshow, also the same day Saudi Aramco canceled an IPO tour across the US, several Saudi airline carriers made a surprising move to order less Boeing planes, and in one case, even opted to buy Airbus planes instead.
Saudi Aramco canceled an IPO roadshow across the US over the lack of institutional support for the deal.
Bankers wanted comprehensive reports on oil reserves, something that Aramco has hidden from institutional investors. This made it very hard for bankers to value the deal, which created too many uncertainties about valuation.
As a result, numerous Wall Street banks moved to the sidelines, something that has undoubtedly upset Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MbS) and has likely resulted in a blowback as Saudi airline carriers have just said they will order fewer Boeing planes.
The world’s eyes are on Dubai once again this week as we host the biggest @DubaiAirshow in terms of volume of deals and international participation, with more than 1,300 exhibitors. pic.twitter.com/iegveG2YAN
— Hamdan bin Mohammed (@HamdanMohammed) November 17, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
When it came time for Saudi airline flynas on Monday to order Boeing 787-8 jets at the airshow, the carrier instead chose to exercise its option to purchase 40 Airbus A320neo, reported Reuters. Coincidence, or is this a blowback for Wall Street banks’ lack of support for the Aramco IPO?
Another Saudi carrier, called Etihad Airways, said on Monday that they would purchase less 787 Dreamliners than initially thought. Another coincidence, or is another subliminal message from the kingdom to the US?
Meanwhile, at the airshow, Boeing executives weren’t selling many planes but focused on calming fears amid two 737Max crashes that killed 346 people in the last year.
Airbus has so far been the big winner at the airshow, already raking in $30 billion worth of new orders as of Monday afternoon.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 21:25 - Leftist Bill Maher: "Learn To Live With Each Other Or There Will Be Blood!"
Leftist Bill Maher: “Learn To Live With Each Other Or There Will Be Blood!”
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
Left-leaning HBO host Bill Maher said that he believes the divisiveness among Americans could potentially spark another civil war.
The comedian and staunch critic of President Trump made the declaration on his latest HBO show Friday.
“Lately we’ve been hearing more and more about a second Civil War, which sounds impossible in this modern affluent country. It is not,” said the “Real Time with Bill Maher”.
Maher is not the first person to predict a civil war due to the political discourse in American culture. President Donald Trump’s spiritual adviser Pastor Robert Jeffress earlier rebuked by liberal critics for an eerily similar prediction.
….If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The liberal outrage from this Tweet was massive. Maher seems to have faced no such backlash for his comments. However, the 63-year-old has been among the president’s most vocal critics on cable television since before Trump even entered the White House. He has regularly compared him to authoritarian dictators, and he has argued repeatedly that he does not believe Trump will relinquish the office if voted out in 2020 – an assertion the president has referenced during recent re-election campaign rallies.
“We all talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. And when both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war,” Maher continued.
We can’t disagree with Maher that both sides have taken it upon themselves to become more radical in their policies. And Maher added that he could be part of the problem toward the end of his program. He said he would “try to stop” insulting people critical of liberals. He then used a backhanded insult saying:
“I’ve learned that the anti-intellectualism on the right doesn’t primarily come from stupidity, it comes from hate.”
“We are going to have to learn to live with each other or there will be blood,” Maher also said during his monologue.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 21:05 - "I Was Wrong. And I Am Sorry": Bloomberg Apologizes To Black Megachurch For 'Stop And Frisk'
“I Was Wrong. And I Am Sorry”: Bloomberg Apologizes To Black Megachurch For ‘Stop And Frisk’
As Michael Bloomberg weighs a bid for the White House next year, the former New York mayor told the congregation at a ‘black megachurch’ on Sunday that he’s sorry for his support of the city’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” program which targeted a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos.
“I was wrong. And I am sorry,” Bloomberg said at the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, pandering to the black vote.
In 2013, a federal judge who declared the program unconstitutional found that nearly 90% of those stopped hadn’t done anything illegal, while a 2018 Equal Justice Initiative report revealed that the city’s abandonment of the tactic had no influence on crime rates, according to Rolling Stone.
Bloomberg notably supported the practice after the ruling.
“Over time [i.e. the last few years, or weeks], I’ve come to understand something that I long struggled to admit to myself: I got something important wrong. I got something important really wrong. I didn’t understand back then the full impact that stops were having on the black and Latino communities. I was totally focused on saving lives, but as we know, good intentions aren’t good enough,” he added.
In 2011, the year with the most stop-and-frisks, 685,724 NYPD stops were recorded. Of those, 88% were innocent, while 87% were black or latino and 9% white. Over half were aged 14-24 years old according to the NY ACLU.
The 77-year-old Bloomberg has not formally entered the 2020 race, however he has taken steps to get on the ballot in states with early filing deadlines according to Reuters. If he does run, Bloomberg will be the fifth most popular candidate, and the richest – eclipsing Donald Trump’s net worth by around $50 billion.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 20:45 - Mauldin: China's Grand Plan To Take Over The World
Mauldin: China’s Grand Plan To Take Over The World
Authored by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com,
When the US and ultimately the rest of the Western world began to engage China, resulting in China finally being allowed into the World Trade Organization in the early 2000s, no one really expected the outcomes we see today.
There is no simple disengagement path, given the scope of economic and legal entanglements. This isn’t a “trade” we can simply walk away from.
But it is also one that, if allowed to continue in its current form, could lead to a loss of personal freedom for Western civilization. It really is that much of an existential question.
Doing nothing isn’t an especially good option because, like it or not, the world is becoming something quite different than we expected just a few years ago – not just technologically, but geopolitically and socially.
China and the West
Let’s begin with how we got here.
My generation came of age during the Cold War. China was a huge, impoverished odd duck in those years. In the late 1970s, China began slowly opening to the West. Change unfolded gradually but by the 1990s, serious people wanted to bring China into the modern world, and China wanted to join it.
Understand that China’s total GDP in 1980 was under $90 billion in current dollars. Today, it is over $12 trillion. The world has never seen such enormous economic growth in such a short time.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union collapsed and the internet was born. The US, as sole superpower, saw opportunities everywhere. American businesses shifted production to lower-cost countries. Thus came the incredible extension of globalization.
We in the Western world thought (somewhat arrogantly, in hindsight) everyone else wanted to be like us. It made sense. Our ideas, freedom, and technology had won both World War II and the Cold War that followed it. Obviously, our ways were best.
But that wasn’t obvious to people elsewhere, most notably China. Leaders in Beijing may have admired our accomplishments, but not enough to abandon Communism.
They merely adapted and rebranded it. We perceived a bigger change than there actually was. Today’s Chinese communists are nowhere near Mao’s kind of communism. Xi calls it “Socialism with a Chinese character.” It appears to be a dynamic capitalistic market, but is also a totalitarian, top-down structure with rigid rules and social restrictions.
So here we are, our economy now hardwired with an autocratic regime that has no interest in becoming like us.
China’s Hundred-Year Marathon
In The Hundred-Year Marathon, Michael Pillsbury marshals a lot of evidence showing the Chinese government has a detailed strategy to overtake the US as the world’s dominant power.
They want to do this by 2049, the centennial of China’s Communist revolution.
The strategy has been well documented in Chinese literature, published and sanctioned by organizations of the People’s Liberation Army, for well over 50 years.
And just as we have hawks and moderates on China within the US, there are hawks and moderates within China about how to engage the West. Unfortunately, the hawks are ascendant, embodied most clearly in Xi Jinping.
Xi’s vision of the Chinese Communist Party controlling the state and eventually influencing and even controlling the rest of the world is clear. These are not merely words for the consumption of the masses. They are instructions to party members.
Grand dreams of world domination are part and parcel of communist ideologies, going all the way back to Karl Marx. For the Chinese, this blends with the country’s own long history.
It isn’t always clear to Western minds whether they actually believe the rhetoric or simply use it to keep the peasantry in line. Pillsbury says Xi Jinping really sees this as China’s destiny, and himself as the leader who will deliver it.
To that end, according to Pillsbury, the Chinese manipulated Western politicians and business leaders into thinking China was evolving toward democracy and capitalism. In fact, the intent was to acquire our capital, technology, and other resources for use in China’s own modernization.
It worked, too.
Over the last 20–30 years, we have equipped the Chinese with almost everything they need to match us, technologically and otherwise. Hundreds of billions of Western dollars have been spent developing China and its state-owned businesses.
Sometimes this happened voluntarily, as companies gave away trade secrets in the (often futile) hope it would let them access China’s huge market. Other times it was outright theft. In either case, this was no accident but part of a long-term plan.
Pillsbury (who, by the way, advises the White House including the president himself) thinks the clash is intensifying because President Trump’s China skepticism is disrupting the Chinese plan. They see his talk of restoring America’s greatness as an affront to their own dreams.
In any case, we have reached a crossroads. What do we do about China now?
Targeted Response
In crafting a response, the first step is to define the problem correctly and specifically. We hear a lot about China cheating on trade deals and taking jobs from Americans. That’s not entirely wrong, but it’s also not the main challenge.
I believe in free trade. I think David Ricardo was right about comparative advantage: Every nation is better off if all specialize in whatever they do best.
However, free trade doesn’t mean nations need to arm their potential adversaries. Nowadays, military superiority is less about factories and shipyards than high-tech weapons and cyberwarfare. Much of our “peaceful” technology is easily weaponized.
This means our response has to be narrowly targeted at specific companies and products. Broad-based tariffs are the opposite of what we should be doing. Ditto for capital controls.
They are blunt instruments that may feel good to swing, but they hurt the wrong people and may not accomplish what we want.
We should not be using the blunt tool of tariffs to fight a trade deficit that is actually necessary. The Chinese are not paying our tariffs; US consumers are.
Importing t-shirts and sneakers from China doesn’t threaten our national security. Let that kind of trade continue unmolested and work instead on protecting our advantages in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, and so on.
The Trump administration appears to (finally) be getting this. They are clearly seeking ways to pull back the various tariffs and ramping up other efforts.
* * *
New York Times best seller and renowned financial expert John Mauldin predicts an unprecedented financial crisis that could be triggered in the next five years. Most investors seem completely unaware of the relentless pressure that’s building right now. Learn more here.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 20:25 - Netherlands Headed For Unprecedented Crisis: Millions Of Retirees Face Pensions Cuts Thanks To The ECB
Netherlands Headed For Unprecedented Crisis: Millions Of Retirees Face Pensions Cuts Thanks To The ECB
When one thinks of pensions crisis, the state of Illinois – with its woefully underfunded retirement system which issues bonds just to fund its existing pension benefits – usually comes to mind. Which is why it is surprising that the first state that may suffer substantial pension cuts is one that actually has one of the world’s best-funded, and most generous, pension systems.
According to the FT, millions of Dutch pensioners are facing material cuts to their retirement income for the first time next year as the Dutch government scrambles to avert a crisis to the country’s €1.6 trillion pension system. And while a last minute intervention by the government may avoid significant cuts to pensions next year – and a revolt by trade unions – if only temporarily, the world finds itself transfixed by the problems facing the Dutch retirement system as it provides an early indication of a wider global pensions funding shortfall, not to mention potential mass unrest once retirees across some of the world’s wealthiest nations suddenly finds themselves with facing haircuts to what they previously believed were unalterable retirement incomes.
At the core of the Dutch cash crunch is the ECB’s negative interest rate policy, which has sent bond yields to record negative territory across the eurozone, and crippled returns analysis while pushing up the funding requirements of Dutch pension funds.
Ahead of a parliamentary debate on Thursday on this hot topic issue, the Dutch minister for social affairs and employment, Wouter Koolmees, will write to lawmakers to outline his response to the pension industry’s problems, the FT reported.
In order to offset the ECB’s NIRP policy, Shaktie Rambaran Mishre, chair of the Dutch pension federation which represents 197 pension funds and their members, said that contributions might have to rise by up to 30% over the next few years, an outcome which will lead to outrage among existing working-age employees who will suffer a surge in the pension costs. Absent a dramatic increase in benefits contributions, “as things stand, around 2 million people are facing cuts from next year,” she added.
Predictably, trade unions have already held protests and strikes this year over the potential cuts to pensions and have threatened more action if the government does not step in. “We expect some relief next week and if not we will mobilise,” said Tuur Elzinga, lead pensions negotiator at FNV, the biggest Dutch union.
Protesters marching in The Hague in June hold a banner that reads ‘A good pension is matter of decency’ The Netherlands – one of the Eurozone’s richest nations – is hardly alone in this predicament, as the ongoing debate reflects broad concerns about the impact of low interest rates among the Eurozone and Japan, as ageing populations and longer life expectancy have put pension systems across the world under great strain. A report last week from the Group of Thirty, a club for current and former policymakers, warned of a $15.8tn shortfall in funding to support the ageing populations of the world’s 20 biggest countries.
And if there is one way to guarantee riots among the world’s richest nations, it is to inform pensioners that their benefits are suddenly being “haircut.”
In some ways, the Netherlands has one of Europe’s most generous retirement systems: at its core, it represents a basic pay-as-you-go state pension as well as employer-run pension scheme which together provide workers with about 80% of their average lifetime wages when they retire. The US and UK have similar systems, but Dutch pension funds are more generous and must use a lower risk-free rate to value their liabilities, forcing them to hold more assets.
Unfortunately, the lower Dutch risk-free rate is not low enough, and as a result about 70 employer-run pension funds with 12.1m members had funding ratios below the statutory minimum at the end of September, according to the Dutch central bank. And here lies the rub: if funds have ratios below the legal minimum for five consecutive years or have no prospect of recovering to a more healthy level, they must cut their payouts. Interest rates have rebounded slightly in recent weeks, but many funds are still facing cuts.
In other words, in making a select handful of European stockholders rich courtesy of NIRP and QE, Mario Draghi is threatening the pensions of hundreds of millions of retired European workers.
So what, if any, is the solution?
Last week, Rabobank reported that the Minister of Social Affairs is supposedly willing to prevent a large part of the pension benefit cuts of 2020, as the government is reportedly willing to lower the minimum coverage ratio from 100% to 90% for one year. This temporary measure can be seen as a pause button, which buys time for:
- Pension funds to hopefully recover over the next year. For pension funds, a rise in their risk-free rate term structure which is used to discount their liabilities (EUR 6m swap rates) would be most helpful
- Continuing to work out the details of the Pension Reforms announced in June 2019. Unions, employer representatives and the opposition parties were against pension cuts because this would undermine the goals set out in the Pension Reforms.
Cutting pensions is a very sensitive and unpopular measure especially for politicians because the government has the ability to change the rules by changing the law. This is especially hard in times where there is no economic downturn, because it makes it more difficult to explain and justify the cuts. One can only imagine what will happen to Dutch pensions during the next Eurozone recession, when the ECB will be forced to cut rates even more negative in the process threatening even more pension haircuts.
While this pause would, in theory, prompt some pension funds to reduce their matching portfolio or hedge ratio in anticipation of pension cuts, not many pension funds already acted on the threat of these cuts according to Rabobank. Therefore, this temporary measure will have a limited effect on the investment behaviour of pension funds because:
- Pension funds are typically big and are long term investors, meaning they take time to react to certain events
- Most pension funds have a fixed risk budget. This risk budget is maximised by regulation and is fixed at the moment the coverage ratio drops below the required coverage ratio. This means if a pension fund would want to increase its risk toward for example equity, it often has to reduce risk somewhere else in the portfolio
- Possible pension cuts are based on the policy coverage ratio which is the 12th month average of the coverage ratio. This further reduces the incentive for a temporary risk-on or risk-off strategy.
What’s next? On 21 November 2019 the official plans will be discussed in parliament, although Rabobank does not expect any additional changes that would affect investment behavior of pension funds. However, as the Dutch bank admits, “there are some challenging times ahead in the pension reform discussions” and it expects possible big changes this time next year. Chief among them: the risk free rate term structure that is used to discount the liabilities will likely change in every possible reform scenario, although it is unclear how much lower it can drop.
As the FT notes, a group of 10 academics wrote to parliament recently calling on the Dutch government not to raise the risk-free rate, arguing this would be at the expense of younger workers as “the assets pot will be a little bit more empty each year”. Others, however, think the government will intervene. “I expect that politically the cuts will not happen,” said Lex Hoogduin a professor at the University of Groningen and a former board member of the Dutch central bank, who did not sign the letter.
“But this is just kicking the can down the road as eventually they won’t be able to afford the payouts that people expect,” said Mr Hoogduin. And the people have Mario Draghi – and now Christine Lagarde – to thank for it.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 20:05 - Globalist Magazine "The Economist" Tells Plebs To Eat Bugs
Globalist Magazine “The Economist” Tells Plebs To Eat Bugs
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,
Globalist magazine ‘The Economist’ published an article encouraging people to live on a diet of bugs like citizens in the conflict-torn Congo in order to save the planet.
Entitled ‘Why eating bugs is so popular in Congo’, the piece champions the consumption of caterpillars, crickets and grasshoppers as being “richer in protein than beef or fish.”
“Others around the world should catch up,” writes the unnamed author.
“Bug farming takes up less land, requires less food and does less damage to the environment than meat or fish farming.”
“Hunting insects is easy, too. Anyone can wander into the forest—or, indeed, to the airport—and gather caterpillars, ants and grasshoppers,” he adds before admitting that
“The wrong variety of insect can poison consumers.”
Eating bugs being popular in the Congo may have something to to with the fact that the DROC is a a conflict-torn, corrupt, politically unstable hellhole with a barely functioning economy from which hundreds of thousands have fled while millions more are at risk of malnutrition and starvation.
Just a thought.
The irony of the Economist telling people to eat bugs is pretty thick given that its own readership, which largely comprises of wealthy privileged elitists, would never even consider doing such a thing.
Once again, it’s very much a case of do as we say not as we do.
Eating bugs has been heavily promoted by cultural institutions and the media in recent months because people are being readied to accept drastically lower standards of living under disastrous global ‘Green New Deal’ programs.
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 19:45 - North Korea Says "Will Not Offer Anything For Trump To Brag About" Without Receiving In Return
North Korea Says “Will Not Offer Anything For Trump To Brag About” Without Receiving In Return
Reuters has quoted Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday as saying North Korea has zero interest in giving President Trump future meetings to brag about unless it receives something in return.
-
N.KOREA SAYS WILL NOT OFFER ANYTHING FOR US PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BRAG ABOUT – KCNA
-
N.KOREA SAYS URGES US TO DROP HOSTILE POLICY AGAINST IT IF IT WANTS TO CONTINUE DIALOGUE – KCNA
North Korea is learning from the US-China trade war, where President Trump routinely pumps fantasy trade deals and boasts on Twitter about illusionary $50 to $60 billion agriculture purchases.
Statements from KCNA were made via Foreign Ministry adviser Kim Kye Gwan, who has recently called for US concessions ahead of a December deadline set by Kim Jong Un for President Trump to provide favorable terms to restore nuclear talks.
Gwan said North Korea wasn’t interested in a summit with the US and called any future talks with the Trump administration “useless.”
“If the US does not really want to let go of its dialogue with us, it should make a decision to withdraw its hostile policy of viewing us as an enemy,” the KCNA statement said.
Gwan’s statements came after the Trump administration canceled joint military exercises with South Korea. President Trump tweeted that Kim Jong Un needs to “act quickly, get the deal done” and suggested a summit could be nearing, saying, “See you soon!”
Gwan said, “Although (North Korea and the US) held three summits and other meetings since June last year, there hasn’t been much improvement in relations, and the US has been just trying to buy time to its favor.”
“We are no longer interested in such meetings that provide us no benefit,” he added.
Negotiations have collapsed since a February summit between both countries in Vietnam after the US rejected North Korean demands for sanction relief for partial abandonment of its nuclear weapons.
It seems that Kim understands ahead of an election year, President Trump will want to showboat any progress made on the Korean Peninsula, even though it might not be beneficial for both countries in the long run.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 19:25 -
- JPMorgan Shames Jeff Gundlach As The King Of The Armageddonists
JPMorgan Shames Jeff Gundlach As The King Of The Armageddonists
As bearish-biased analysts, strategists, and investors throw in the towel amid the market’s incessant FOMO-driven melt-up in the face of record global policy uncertainty, declining earnings, and a global economy showing anything but ‘troughing’; it seems JPMorgan’s Asset Management group has decided now is the time to name names and call out the last decade’s so-called “Armageddonists”…
Authored by Michael Cembalest, CIO JPMorgan Private Bank,
While recessions and bear markets are a fact of life, something peculiar happened after the Global Financial Crisis: the rise of the Armageddonists, which refers to the market-watchers, forecasters and money managers whose apocalyptic comments spread like wildfire in print and online financial news. I understand why: by 2010, investors had experienced two consecutive bear markets, each with equity declines of over 40%. It took several years for equity markets to recover each time, unlike the shallower, faster-recovering bear markets of the 1960’s and 1980’s. The dismal performance of consecutive 2001/2008 bear markets hadn’t been seen in decades, and is only comparable to parts of the Great Depression.
I also understand that mega-bearish news appeals to human negativity bias, a topic examined by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman in his 2011 book on the brain and human survival instincts, by political scientist Stuart Soroka who has illustrated the inverse relationship between magazine sales and the positivity of a magazine’s cover, and in a 2014 experiment in which a city newspaper lost two thirds of its readers on a day when it deliberately only published positive news. That said, what are the consequences for investors that reacted to dire Armageddonist predictions which have flooded the airwaves and internet since 2010?
We pulled together comments made by well known Armageddonists since 2010, a few of whom are on record as having anticipated the prior bear market and recession.
We measured the impact on an investor deciding to shift a dollar from equities to diversified government, mortgage-backed and corporate bonds after reading the post-2010 comments. To be clear, this isn’t about whether the Armageddonist at some point became more optimistic. This chart is about the opportunity loss for investors that acted upon seeing their comments at the time. One example: $1 shifted from equities to bonds in 2014 in response to mega-bearish commentary would have underperformed equities by around 40% as the S&P 500, propelled more by earnings growth than by multiple expansion, rolled on.
[ZH: It seems DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach shares the dubious award for ‘worst’ Armageddonist, with none other than Dr.Doom – Nouriel Roubini]
One day, of course, Armageddonists will be rewarded with a recession.
Partly as a consequence of the China-US Trade War, equity outperformance vs bonds reached a peak in early 2018 and has been treading water since; CEO Confidence has plunged to its lowest level since the financial crisis; the US is now in an earnings recession; and 67% of respondents to the Duke CFO Survey believe the US will be in recession by the end of 2020 (despite all of this, institutional investor positioning in equity futures is close to its highest/most bullish level since 2007). I believe that the health of the US consumer, strong labor and housing markets and a modest rebound in manufacturing will prevent a recession from happening in 2020, but I could be wrong. In any case, for investors that reacted to Armageddonist comments, the larger issue is this: the next recession and bear market will have to be quite severe to earn back what was sacrificed along the way. Using rough math, a sustained, multi-year bear market with 35%-45% declines from peak levels would be needed to reverse many of the opportunity losses shown in the chart above.
How severe will the next bear market be?
I believe it won’t be as bad as the prior two, due to the following:
-
a reduction in global economic imbalances,
-
higher levels of capital and decreased funding risks in US and European banks,
-
stronger balance sheet fundamentals of US households,
-
reduced risk in most Emerging Markets due to higher levels of foreign exchange reserves and less reliance on foreign capital,
-
and the low level of new US equity supply since buybacks and M&A have exceeded new equity issuance for the last five years.
What are the mega-bearish counterpoints?
US equity valuations are well above median, underwriting standards in the leveraged loan market have declined to disturbing levels, and deficits are financing a large part of US growth this late in the cycle. And, as discussed in our October Eye on the Market, there could be a seismic shift in Washington in 2020 that imposes substantial taxes, bans on share repurchases and regulatory costs on tech, energy, healthcare, financials, biotech, wireless, chemicals and more. Too soon to assess in terms of probabilities, but chances of a fundamental re-ordering of the US economy are rising.
All things considered, I think the next recession and bear market will not be as severe or long-lasting as the worst ones shown above. If that’s the case, it would ratify the approach of money managers that maintained normal exposures to risky assets in diversified portfolios since 2010, even as the business cycle aged and apocalyptic commentary swirled around them.
* * *
Having said all that, who could have seen this coming?
Source: Bloomberg
Of course, we suspect the fact that Michael Cembalest has decided to issue this report, “outing” the Armageddonists, will only fuel the calls for a top in complacency… just remember if greed is good, extreme greed must be awesome for everyone…
Source: CNN
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 19:05 -
- 'The Horowitz Report Is Coming, The Horowitz Report Is Coming' – Lindsay Graham Signals Early Dec. Release
‘The Horowitz Report Is Coming, The Horowitz Report Is Coming’ – Lindsay Graham Signals Early Dec. Release
For over a year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been ‘investigating the investigators’ – as has become the common parlance – and the last few months have seen growing angst among those on the left about what (and who) his report on FISA abuse and the origins of the Russia investigation may include.
As Townhall reports, investigations for the report have been concluded since September and have been reviewed by DOJ for classified information; and today, we get a step closer to finding out as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released a statement confirming the dates for Horowitz’s testimony.
“I appreciate all the hard work by Mr. Horowitz and his team regarding the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign,” Graham said.
“Mr. Horowitz will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11, where he will deliver a detailed report of what he found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better.”
Graham concluded…
“I look forward to hearing from him. He is a good man that has served our nation well.”
As do many others.
The timing of Horowitz’ testimony indicates a release for the highly anticipated report during the first week of December – which makes sense given this week’s impeachment circus will suck all the oxygen out of the room and next week is Thanksgiving.
Indeed, as James Howard Kunstler pointed out so eloquently earlier today:
Democrats are pouring it on this week ahead of a post-Thanksgiving cold water deluge of bad news that will detail charges against the progenitors of RussiaGate. The roll-call may be a long one, including many actors whose turpitudes have been publicly and richly documented for many months – Messers, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, Halper, Ms. Page, et. al – and, if real justice is on order, not a few figures lurking in the Deep State deep background — John Carlin, Bill Priestap, Dana Boente, Michael Gaeta, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and perhaps even the archangel Barack Obama, just in time for Christmas, too. Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann deserve to be included for what amounted to a blatant, arrantly mendacious malicious prosecution, knowing that they had no case and proceeding anyway for two whole years.
I hope the roundup will extend to the very latest ploys leading to RussiaGate’s successor subterfuge, UkraineGate, namely the exploits of “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella, his handlers and enablers in Mr. Schiff’s office, and the actions of his accomplice, Michael Atkinson, the current Intelligence Community Inspector General, with obvious conflicts of interests as a major player in the previous RuissiaGate dodge — he was legal counsel to Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, who headed the Department of Justice’s National Security Division at the birth of the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” gambit, and before that he was Robert Mueller’s chief of staff at the FBI.
But, hoping for all those names above to face some perp walks may well be wishful thinking, but for now, we are sure they will be sweating.
Of course, given Graham’s suggested release schedule, that’s just enough time for Comey and Clapper to book their flights to Caracas.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 18:45 - PG&E Probing "Suspicious" Monetary Claims From Fire Victims, Including A $280 Million Emerald
PG&E Probing “Suspicious” Monetary Claims From Fire Victims, Including A $280 Million Emerald
While lawyers tap dance in the background, thinking about the hundreds of thousands of billable hours they are racking up, things at PG&E, which is left dealing with billions worth of damaged goods claims one at a time, are not as optimistic.
Among the latest “suspicious” claims the company has come across while sifting through the dragnet of victims is one man who says the company’s Camp Fire wildfire destroyed his 500 pound emerald, worth $280 million.
In addition to seeking a claim for the emerald, the man and his wife have submitted four duplicate claims for $4.5 million each, according to PG&E. PG&E is probing this and other “exceptionally large monetary claims, which appear suspicious,” according to Bloomberg.
The probe is part of a court process that is attempting to determine the company’s potential losses from wildfires caused by its infrastructure. U.S. District Judge James Donato is set to weigh in early this week at a regularly scheduled hearing.
In the case of the emerald, PG&E is seeking appraisal reports and receipts to back up the claims. The company said in a legal filing:
“With respect to the claim for the $280 million emerald, the company wants proof the owner made an effort to secure and protect the emerald and documents showing that the emerald was damaged or destroyed.”
Information from several large claims that total about $370 million will be used to try and figure out whether or not a discount should be applied to false or overvalued claims.
PG& did not identify the owner of the emerald or name specifics about those submitting dubious claims. A committee representing fire victims argue that the company is spotlighting information about individuals who aren’t part of the proceeding in front of Judge Donato. The committee also says that PG&E’s probing of the claims, in general, is improper. Many victims have been displaced from their homes, have lost family members and are getting psychological treatment, the committee lawyers argued.
Committee lawyers representing the victims said in a filing: “Asking these fire victims to produce financial back-up for their claims and be deposed on the details of this backup is unduly burdensome and should not be permitted.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2019 – 18:25
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Su-35new.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/dutch%20protesters.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}