- Trump The Great?
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
Liberals, progressives, and the left-wing (to the extent that one still exists) are aligning with the corrupt oligarchy against president-elect Trump and the American people.
They are busy at work trying to generate hysteria over Trump’s “authoritarian personality and followers.” In other words, the message is: here come the fascists.
Liberals and progressives wailed and whined about “an all white male cabinet,” only to be made fools by Trump’s appointment of a black male and two women, one a minority and one a Trump critic.
The oligarchs are organizing their liberal progressive front groups to disrupt Trump’s inauguration in an effort to continue the attempt to delegitimize Trump the way the paid Maidan protesters were used in Kiev to delegitimize the elected Ukrainian government.
To the extent any of the Trump protesters are sincere and not merely paid tools of oligarchs, such as George Soros, military and financial interests, and global capitalists, they should consider that false claims and unjustified criticism can cause Trump and his supporters to close their ears to all criticism and make it easier for neoconservatives to influence Trump by offering support.
At this point we don’t know what a Trump government is going to do. If he sells out the people, he won’t be reelected. If he is defeated by the oligarchy, the people will become more radical.
We do not know how Washington insiders appointed to the government will behave inside a Trump presidency. Unless they are ideologues like the neoconservatives or agents of powerful interests, insiders survive by going along with the current. If the current changes under Trump, so will the insiders.
Trump got elected because flyover America has had all it can take from the self-dealing oligarchy. The vast bullk of America has seen its economic prospects and that of children and grandchildren decline for a quarter century. The states Hillary carried are limited to the liberal enclaves and oligarchy’s stomping grounds on the NE and West coasts and in Colorado and New Mexico, where effete wealthy liberals have located because of the scenary. If you look at the red/blue electoral map, geographically speaking Hillary’s support is very limited.
We know that Hillary is an agent for the One Percent. The Clintons $120 million personal wealth and $1.6 billion personal foundation are proof that the Clintons are bought-and-paid-for. We know that Hillary is responsible for the destruction of Libya and of much of Syria and for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Ukraine. We know that the Clinton regime’s sanctions on Iraq resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity. We know Hillary used government office for private gain. We know she violated national security laws without being held accountable. What we don’t know is why groups that allegedly are liberal-progressive-leftwing are such fervent supporters of Hillary.
One possible answer is that these groups are mere fronts for vested interests and are devoid of any sincere motives.
Another possible answer is that these groups believe that the important issues are not jobs for Americans and avoiding war with nuclear powers, but transgender, homosexual and illegal alien rights.
Another possible answer is that these groups are uninformed and stupid.
What these protesters see as a threat in Trump’s strong and willful personality is actually a virtue. A cipher like Obama has no more ability to stand up to the oligarchy than a disengaged George W. Bush so easily stage-managed by Dick Cheney. Nothing less than an authoritarian style and personality is a match for the well-entrenched ruling oligarchy and willful neoconservatives. If Trump were a shrinking violet, the electorate would have ignored him.
Trump did not purchase his presidency with the offer of handouts to blacks, the poor generally, teachers unions, farmers, abortion rights for women, etc. Trump was elected because he said: “Those who control the levers of power in Washington and the global special interests they partner with, don’t have your good in mind. It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you.”
It has been a long time since the electorate heard this kind of talk from someone seeking public office. Trump’s words are what Americans were waiting to hear.
As willful as Trump is, he is only one person. The oligarchy are many.
As impressive as Trump’s billion dollars is, the oligarchs have trillions.
Congress being in Republican hands will spare Trump partisan obstruction, but Congress remains in the hands of interest groups.
As powerful as the office of the president can be, without unity in government changes from the top don’t occur, especially if the president is at odds with the military with regard to the alleged threat posed by Russia and China. Trump says he wants peace with the nuclear powers. The military/security complex needs an enemy for its budget.
It is absolutely necessary that a lid be put on tensions between nuclear powers and that economic opportunity reappears for the American people. Trump is not positioned to benefit from war and jobs offshoring. The only sensible strategy is to support him on these issues and to hold his feet to the fire.
As for the immigration issue, the Obama Justice (sic) Department has just worsened the picture with its ruling that American police departments cannot discriminate against non-citizens by only hiring citizens as officers. Now that US citizens face arrest in their own country by non-citizens, the resentment of immigrants will increase. Clearly it is nonsensical to devalue American citizenship in this way. Clearly it is sensible to put a lid on immigration until the US economy is again able to create jobs capable of sustaining an independent existence.
If Trump can defeat the oligarchy and save America, he can go down in history as Trump the Great. I think that this prospect appeals to Trump more than more wealth. Instead of trying to tear him down in advance, he should be supported. With Trump’s determination and the people’s support, change from the top down is possible. Otherwise, change has to come from the bottom up, and that means an awful lot of blood in the streets.
- Marc Hanson: "Houses Have Never Been More Expensive To Buyers Who Need A Mortgage"
From Marc Hanson of M Hanson Advisors
Houses have NEVER BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE to end-user, mortgage-needing shelter buyers. The recent rate surge crushed what little affordability remained in US housing. It now it requires 45% more income to buy the average-priced house than just four years ago, as incomes have not kept pace it goes without saying.
The spike in rates has taken “UNAFFORDABILITY” to such extremes that prices, rates, and/or credit are now radically out of scope.
At these interest rate levels house prices are simply not sustainable even in the lower-end price bands, which were far more stable than the middle-to-higher end bands (have been under significant pressure since spring).
* * *
The Data (note, for simplicity my models assume best-case 20% down and A-grade credit, which is the “minority” of lower-to-middle end buyers).
1) The average $361k builder house requires nearly $65k in income assuming a 4.5% rate, 20% down, and A-grade credit. Problem is, 20% + A-credit are hard to come by. For buyers with less down or worse credit, far more than $65k is needed.
For the past 30-YEARS income required to buy the average priced house has remained relatively consistent, as mortgage rate credit manipulation made houses cheaper.
Bottom line: Reversion to the mean will occur through house price declines, credit easing, a mortgage rate plunge to the high 2%’s, or a combination of all three. However, because rates are still historically low and mortgage guidelines historically easy, the path of least resistance is lower house prices.
2) The average $274k builder house requires nearly $53k in income assuming a 4.5% rate, 20% down, and A-grade credit. Problem is, 20% + A-credit are hard to come by. For buyers with less down or worse credit, far more than $53k is needed.
For the past 30-YEARS income required to buy the average priced house has remained relatively consistent, as mortgage rate credit manipulation made houses cheaper.
Bottom line: Reversion to the mean will occur through house price declines, credit easing, a mortgage rate plunge to the high 2%s, or a combination of all three. However, because rates are still historically low and mortgage guidelines historically easy, the path of least resistance is lower house prices.
3) Bonus Chart … Case-Shiller Coast-to-Coast Bubbles
Bottom line: IT’S NEVER DIFFERENT THIS TIME. Easy/cheap/deep credit & liquidity has found its way to real estate yet again. Bubbles are bubbles are bubbles. And as these core housing markets hit a wall they will take the rest of the nation with them; bubbles and busts don’t happen in “isolation.”
Case-Shiller’s most Bubblicious Regions
- Ask Yourself: If 2005-07 was the peak of the largest housing bubble in history with “affordability” never better vis a’ vis exotic loans; easy availability of credit; unemployment in the 4%’s; the total workforce at record highs; and growing wages, then what do you call “now” with house prices at or above 2006 levels; high unaffordability; tighter credit; higher unemployment; a weak total workforce; and shrinking (at best) wages?
- Logical Answer: Whatever you call it, it’s a greater thing than the Bubble 1.0 peak.
The mind-numbing Case-Shiller regional charts below are presented without too much comment. The visual says it all.
- Lone Blogger Rages Against The Washington Post's Russian "Hit List"
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
I have to admit I’m quite honored to see that Liberty Blitzkrieg was recently included on a list of some of the most illustrious, impactful and successful alternative news websites on the planet.
The list was created by an anonymous group of status quo crybabies who simply can’t handle the fact their beloved chosen oligarch was defeated in a democratically held election by Donald Trump (who I didn’t even support). As such, they are lashing out at alternative news outlets deemed most effective in countering the smothering and nonsensical pro-Hillary narrative tirelessly propagated by the fake mainstream news media.
The group in question calls itself PropOrNot, and self-describes in the following manner:
PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda – particularly Russian propaganda – targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it.
We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions. We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.
Unfortunately, this is apparently all we know so far about this shadowy organization, which is simply hilarious considering the group deems any alternative news source that does not agree with the U.S. government narrative to be either outright Russian propaganda, or “useful idiots.”
Here’s “the list:”
What’s particularly interesting about this list, isn’t the fact that a bunch of anonymous whiners decided to demonize successful critics of insane, inhumane and ethically indefensible U.S. government policy, but rather the fact that the Washington Post decided to craft an entire article around such a laughably ridiculous list. This just further proves a point that is rapidly becoming common knowledge amongst U.S. citizens with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. The mainstream media is the real “fake news.”
Let’s take Liberty Blitzkrieg for example. Despite the fact that my site is mentioned on “the list,” nobody from PropOrNot bothered to contact me while doing their “research.” They could’ve asked very simple questions about how the site is run, who owns it, and who makes decisions about editorial content. Furthermore, I doubt they did any such research with regard to any of the mentioned sites before slandering them.
Since they failed to do any real work, let me answer several of these questions. I, Michael Krieger am the 100% owner of Liberty Blitzkrieg. I, Michael Krieger am the only person who makes decisions on what to publish and when. I have absolutely no connections, financial or otherwise, to the Russian government, Russian interests, or the interests of any other government or government related group. Moreover, there is simply nobody on planet earth who has any influence on what I write or what I publish. I left a very successful and financially lucrative job to do what I do now because my passions and ethical grounding pushed me in this direction. If I was interested in making enormous sums of money, I could’ve easily stayed on Wall Street.
Moreover, I rarely write about Russia, with the exception of trying to prevent insane neocons and neoliberals in our government from actively seeking a military confrontation, because I — like most normal human beings — would prefer not to contribute to the manifestation of World War 3. Likewise, I try to prevent war breaking out in all circumstances where I think it can and should be avoided. I intentionally almost never use RT as a source, and I’ve never quoted anything from Sputnik. Unlike The Washington Post, I try to be extremely diligent about not publishing fake news, but I am a very strong critic of U.S. government policy, because much of U.S. government policy is certifiably insane and unethical. You can disagree with my opinion on that all you’d like, but I challenge anyone to find anything that could reasonably be considered pro-Russia propaganda on my website. If Liberty Blitzkrieg really is a Russian propaganda site, this should be easy to do since I’ve published thousands of articles over the years.
For those who ask why I focus on the transgressions of the U.S. government as opposed to foreign governments, the answer should be quite obvious. I am a U.S. citizen. My responsibility is not to change the policies of foreign governments, but to make my own country as honorable and accountable as possible. As Noam Chomsky so eloquently noted:
One of the most elementary moral truisms is that you are responsible for the anticipated consequences of your own actions. It is fine to talk about the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there isn’t much that you can do about them. If Soviet intellectuals chose to devote their energies to crimes of the U.S., which they could do nothing about, that is their business. We honor those who recognized that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. And it is interesting that no one ever asks for an explanation, because in the case of official enemies, truisms are indeed truisms. It is when truisms are applied to ourselves that they become contentious, or even outrageous. But they remain truisms. In fact, the truisms hold far more for us than they did for Soviet dissidents, for the simple reason that we are in free societies, do not face repression, and can have a substantial influence on government policy. So if we adopt truisms, that is where we will focus most of our energy and commitment. The explanation is even more obvious than in the case of official enemies.
Naturally, truisms are hated when applied to oneself. You can see it dramatically in the case of terrorism. In fact one of the reasons why I am considered “public enemy number one” among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many intellectuals, including left-liberal intellectuals, because if we faced such truths we could do something about the terrorist acts for which we are responsible, accepting elementary moral responsibilities instead of lauding ourselves for denouncing the crimes official enemies, about which we can often do very little.
Elementary honesty is often uncomfortable, in personal life as well, and there are people who make great efforts to evade it. For intellectuals, throughout history, it has often come close to being their vocation. Intellectuals are commonly integrated into dominant institutions. Their privilege and prestige derives from adapting to the interests of power concentrations, often taking a critical look but in very limited ways. For example, one may criticize the war in Vietnam as a “mistake” that began with “benign intentions”. But it goes too far to say that the war is not “a mistake” but was “fundamentally wrong and immoral”. the position of about 70 percent of the public by the late 1960s, persisting until today, but of only a margin of intellectuals. The same is true of terrorism. In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM. That is probably close to a historical universal. And there are innumerable other examples.
The fake mainstream news media is completely failing. It is failing because rather than informing the public and criticizing the powerful, it has become merely a giant public relations organ for the U.S. government. The American public clearly sees through the bullshit, in large part due to the efforts of alternative news media. Think about it. Liberty Blitzkrieg doesn’t have a single outside employee. Other than the heroic efforts of my tech person (who spends very little of his time on this site), there’s really no one else contributing in any material way to the operation of this blog. So for a website run by a relatively unknown person to have made it onto this slanderous list (subsequently highlighted by the Washington Post), is not only a great honor, but a testament to the impact one person can have in an environment dominated by a transparently fake and desperate mainstream media.
As I noted on Twitter earlier today.
I'm one guy writing on a website with zero employees and no budget, and the Washington Post is threatened by me. Hilarious.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) November 25, 2016
and
Twitter follower count already exploding higher thanks to being included on "the list."
Thanks fake mainstream news media!— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) November 25, 2016
To further demonstrate how desperate the failing mainstream media is to demonize its scrappy alternative news competitors, here’s how The Washington Post “reported” on the PropOrNot list:
Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.
The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.
PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.
Interesting. I’d love to see what their “analytics tools” say about Liberty Blitzkrieg. Furthermore, what about that “common ownership” claim. As I mentioned before, I am the sole owner of Liberty Blitzkrieg. It seems PropOrNot is merely making shit up about successful websites they consider a threat. If The Washington Post’s decision to highligh such a list isn’t “fake news,” I don’t know what is.
Further proving The Washington Post’s lack of any sort of journalistic standards, it highlights PropOrNot despite the fact that…
“The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” said the executive director of PropOrNot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers. “It was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump’s campaign. . . . It worked.”
I mean, this is simply embarrassing.
To conclude, the mainstream media is getting exactly what it deserves. Its impact is spiraling into irrelevance, its “journalists” bordering on the comical, and its standards beneath those of individual bloggers with zero staff and no budget. To conclude, the only thing I can ask of readers is the following: Support alternative media now more than ever. Put your money where your mouth is and help defeat the fake news mainstream media once and for all.
To that end, I’d ask that you please visit the Liberty Blitzkrieg Support Page and consider contributing.
I’ve written on this topic on several occasions. For more, see:
Obama Enters the Media Wars – Why His Recent Attack on Free Speech is So Dangerous and Radical
Hillary Clinton Enters the Media Wars
- The Battle Of Black Friday: Visualizing The Winners And Losers
Black Friday – the name elevates images of people standing in long lines, fighting the crowds to grab the best bargains of the year, and filling the shopping carts to the rims. But, as FreeShippingCode.com notes, from another perspective Black Friday is the day when retailers try to push their sales to the last limits in order to maximize their profits, i.e. move from red (loss) column to the black (profit).
While the shoppers try to grab the best bargains of the year, the retailers, on the other hand, try to achieve their Black Friday sales targets, this battle continues till the end of the day to mark the winners and losers of this battle.
The Changing Battlefield
Black Friday sales reached record levels in the last year, but if you are wondering why you did not see those long lines and scenes of shoppers fighting for the best bargains, it is because most of the Black Friday shopping last year was done online. Sales data from last year reveals that 51% Black Friday shoppers used their smartphones to shop online and only 49% headed to the shopping malls and big retail stores. Shoppers have all the good reasons to justify their choice of using their mobile phones and desktops to do their Black Friday shopping online.
A Look At Some Of The Winners
The online shopping landscape has dramatically changed the shopping behavior of Black Friday shoppers, as a result, many big retail giants with profound online presence and popularity are enjoying good sales and profits. Let us have a look at some of the major retailers who were able to make it to the victory stands last year.
Amazon came first with a big chunk of the online sales (35%) in the last Black Friday season. Apple with its popular iPad and iPod brands also enjoyed a good Black Friday season last year. Similarly, REI despite its early announcement to remain closed on the big day recorded 26% increase in the online traffic.
Every year Black Friday creates demand for thousands of new jobs. Retailers hire more than 70,000 part time seasonal workers and offer them handsome packages and bonuses to perform various tasks like managing distributions, dealing with customers, running store operations and stocking new inventories. These season workers are always the winners in this battle of sales and bargains.
A Look At Some Of The Losers
At the end of every epic Black Friday shop-a-thon, there are winners and there are losers. Let us have a look at some of the losers of Black Friday 2015.
The brick and mortar shopping trend, in general, experienced a great decline in last year's Black Friday shopping event. ASDA, a Walmart subsidiary that introduced this event in the UK market failed to survive. Similarly, a lot of other big retail stores in the UK like Primark, John Lewis, Oasis, and Argos also reduced their participation or canceled it altogether. A lot of the online retail stores failed to handle the heavy traffic load and experienced downtime. John Lewis, for example, reported that one minute of downtown accounted for £75,000 in lost sales.
In addition to the lost sales faced by the retailers, the consumers also faced losses in terms of injuries and deaths while shopping for discounted items on this one-day shopping bonanza. Since 2006 almost 98 people faced various injuries and 7 lost their lives to win this battle of sales and bargains.
- "The DryShips Market" – What Comes Next Is Anyone's Guess
Since we are in the Thanksgiving lull of the “markets.” I wanted to express something that takes place in my own head around these times. Where I (and believe others) may also share some of the same conflicted feelings as we not only try to give thanks, we simultaneously ponder thoughts to what the future might portend, and how we are going to move with it. For in the game of business as is life: the decision process never rests.
I used the term “conflicted” for a reason. If you’re anything like me (and I believe we’re all the same, it’s only how we deal with things that makes all the difference) they run the gamut from not just the good or bad, but some may range from the exuberantly spectacular – to the down right terrifying.
Then last, but certainly not least, buffeted with either a single-minded focus – to outright scatter-brained confusion, notwithstanding the myriad of combinations of some, if not all of them at once.
Nobody knows what the future may portend. Everything (and I do mean everything) is a best guess with whatever evidence you have at your disposal; a willingness to believe in your gut, and your abilities; and the willingness and fortitude to live with/by your decisions. That sounds simple enough, yes. However, it’s in the application, and the willingness of follow through, which makes all the difference. That’s the hard part.
So why am I making these observations today one might ask? Well, it all started the other day when I received a note from a colleague questioning my thoughts after they read the following headline. To wit:
“Traders Are Now 100% Sure The Fed Hikes Rates In December”
Their question? “Have you rethought your call about the Fed. in December? It would seem you’re not just in the minority: you are the minority!”
It’s a fair question, as well as a point. However, with that said: No. (as I’ve previously stated I’m currently 85/15 favoring that they won’t.)
This isn’t some form of relentless death-grip to be contrarian just for the sake of it. Far from it. Rather, I am becoming even more steadfast in that position based on what I believe or “see” as compelling evidence that the Fed., regardless of what it may want to do, will have their hands tied (once again) by “international developments.” e.g. China.
Whether or not that turns out to be correct is anyone’s guess. For it is all guessing, no matter who says differently.
Yet, here is where a “spectacular” bull____ run up in “markets” may turn into a truly “terrifying” off-a-cliff stampede should just one metric change. That metric? The Yuan.
As I sit here today typing, the Chinese currency is not only still in free fall, it is resting precariously so close to the “cliffs edge” (e.g. 7.00 USD/CNY) if it falls over – it will take all markets with it. Emphasis on all. For if one thinks Aug. of 2015 was scary? Let me use this for analogy:
Aug. 2015 will look like a kiddie rollercoaster as compared to what the “markets” newest amusement park has constructed in the last few weeks if it all goes awry. And China – not the Fed. – is the one contemplating on whether or not it will open sooner, rather than later. And the clock is ticking.
Dec. 14th is the Fed’s stated “grand opening.” i.e., (they’re really, really, really going to “do it” this time) Any day in between now and then – is China’s to decide. In other words: whether to preempt or not. Or stated differently: Whatever China decides it will, or won’t do during this period dictates what the Fed. will, or won’t be able to do. Period.
If you think China is going to sit idly by so the Fed. can just raise rates, to then watch their currency tumble into oblivion forced by circumstances not of their own volition, causing capital outflows of historic proportions, which may, or may not exacerbate civil unrest within its borders, when it has (as in knows precisely the mechanism as to manipulate a possible delay to their own benefit) I believe is fool-hearty at best, willingly blind at worst.
Since I used the term “amusement” and “rollercoaster” for an analogy, let me use a current chart (or charts) to express precisely what I’m speaking to. For there seems to be quite a lot of P.T. Barnum-ing when it comes to describing these “markets” post U.S. election. And it’s not just the main-stream media, but also every next in rotation fund manager, or Ivory Towered economist who can get to a microphone or camera. And be careful not to get in their way – for you will be trampled upon. So here’s that chart. To wit:
DryShips stock chart from about 2 weeks ago
The problem? Again, to wit:
Here they are as of the Wednesday’s close
Much like you have seen the U.S. markets with its most nascent accent, so too was DryShips.
For all intents and purposes this company was at one time regarded and held as the be-all, tell-all, bellwether (especially for one CNBC™ buy,buy,buy king) for global trade. And when the “markets” displayed a “Trump winning means we’re building again!” Everything jumped in unison to match what the so-called “smart crowd” was touting as more causation, rather than correlation. i.e., “The markets are a forward-looking indicator. So get on the bandwagon quick before it passes you by!”
As I’ve said many times before: “Beware when everyone’s on the bandwagon – except the band.”
And it would seem that’s precisely what a lot of people noticed (or at least recognized one mother of a short squeeze for what it was) and thought better of it. Sadly, for those who bought into that whole “causation” premise that was being touted across the financial/business media at large and did the whole “Buy,buy, buy!” thing? You have my sympathies – once again.
So here we are, and one needs to ponder which way, or view, is the correct one?
Here’s what I know: Nobody knows. And I mean just that: no – body.
It’s all a best guess scenario regardless of who says different. All you can do is try to decipher clues from the clutter as best you can, make a decision as to what you believe is the most probable outcome if correct, put yourself in the best place as to if it works in your favor (or if your proved to be right) you can, at the least, benefit from it. Whether benefit means capitalize, or alleviate any potential harm. Then, and most importantly – live with, and by, your decisions.
You can always reevaluate and adjust going forward.
I say this because I’ve been there. I’ve made some bad decisions, (actually more like terrible) and some good ones. Many of those decisions were in direct opposition to people (and what seemed to be the world-at-large) who were touted to be smarter, more experienced, better looking (much better actually) more seasoned, better educated, and with far more money or wealth than I ever had. That, and a whole lot more.
I have stood in the face of all of that saying : “What makes you so right?” And then demanded they either give a cogent argument, or, just shut up and go away. Especially when it has come down to business and/or life decisions. More often than not, the “cogent” part never materialized. My record (I’m proud to say) of right or wrong stands on its own. Yes, warts and all.
You find out as one moves along in life more things are based on “because I said/think so” rather than anything resembling a real thought process. You need to research, evaluate, then decide for yourself. Then, let the chips fall where they may.
That isn’t always easy. (Trust me, I know!) But it is the only way.
So once again, who knows what will happen from here, but I’ll end all this using a video link and song that pretty much sums up my stand today as my battle cry in response to my colleague’s inquiry to what I think may, or may not think happen as it pertains to the Fed.
I believe it fits today as it did for me back long ago. Where I remember and give thanks during this holiday time. For it wasn’t all that long ago when it wasn’t only myself contemplating going up against a world that said “What makes you think you can? ” as to try and grasp the “brass ring” of life. But also, for few friends of mine that were facing the same issues, at the same time. I know because we discussed them. (you can read a little about that here, and here if you wish)
The song and video title says it all, “I Stand Alone” And the name of those friends? They’re known as Godsmack.
What comes next? Again, nobody knows for sure. All I know is the clock is now ticking into December 14th, that is irrefutable. That, and believing the “alarm” doesn’t go off before, and is totally under the Fed’s purview, is the only thing which everyone seems complacent in. Which to my mind – is just plain nuts.
- Australia Cuts Clinton Foundation Donations To $0
For months we’ve been told that the Clinton Foundation, and it’s various subsidiaries, were simple, innocent “charitable” organizations, despite the mountain of WikiLeaks evidence suggesting rampant pay-to-play scandals surrounding a uranium deal with Russia and earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti, among others. Well, if that is, in fact, true perhaps the Clintons could explain why wealthy foreign governments, like Australia and Norway, are suddenly slashing their contributions just as Hillary’s schedule has been freed up to focus exclusively on her charity work. Surely, these foreign governments weren’t just contributing to the Clinton Foundation in hopes of currying favor with the future President of the United States, were they? Can’t be, only an useless, “alt-right,” Putin-progranda-pushing, fake news source could possibly draw such a conclusion.
Alas, no matter the cause, according to news.com.au, the fact is that after contributing $88mm to the Clinton Foundation, and its various affiliates, over the past 10 years the country of Australia has decided to cease future donations to the foundation just weeks after Hillary’s stunning loss on November 4th.
And just like that, 2 out of the 3 largest foreign contributors to the Clinton Foundation are gone with Saudia Arabia being the last remaining $10-$25mm donor that hasn’t explicitly cut ties or massively scaled by contributions.
News.com.au confirmed Australia’s decision to cut future donations to the Clinton Foundation earlier today. When asked why donations were being cut off now, a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade official simply said that the Clinton Foundation has “a proven track record” in helping developing countries. While that sounds nice, doesn’t it seem counterintuitive that these countries would pull their funding just as Hillary has been freed up to spend 100% of her time helping people in developing countries?
Australia has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.
Which begs the question: Why were we donating to them in the first place?
The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.
News.com.au approached the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for comment about how much was donated and why the Clinton Foundation was chosen as a recipient.
A DFAT spokeswoman said all funding is used “solely for agreed development projects” and Clinton charities have “a proven track record” in helping developing countries.
Of course it’s only fitting that Australia’s Prime Minister is none other than Malcolm Turnbull, the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia. Goldman Sachs only pays for results Madam Secretary.
Meanwhile, this new comes just after the Norwegian newspaper Hegnar pointed out earlier this week that Norway is expected to slash their contributions to the Clinton Foundation by 87% now that Hillary has lost the presidency. After contributing roughly $5mm per year to the Clinton Foundation between 2007 – 2013, the Norwegian government decided to boost their donations to ~$15mm and ~$21mm in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Ironically, that boost in contributions corresponded with Hillary’s decision to run for President in 2016…but we’re sure it was just a coincidence. That said, it is fairly interesting that, since Hillary’s loss, Norway, like Australia, also decided to scale back their contributions by 87% in 2017…things that make you go “hmm”.
After a record contribution from Norway to the disputed Clinton Foundation before the election year, is the contribution now in freefall. Financial newspaper can tell that next year’s contribution is down 83 percent from the peak year of 2015.
For 2016, the planned payments to Clinton Health Access Initiative totaling 35.9 million kroner, writes communications advisor Guri Solberg at the Foreign Ministry, in an email to Finance newspaper.
It is one-fifth of last year’s contribution, when nominating election campaign before the US primaries was in full swing, and the Clinton Foundation came under the spotlight in the US press.
According to Finance newspaper lay the annual Norwegian contribution of NOK 40 million on average from 2007 to 2013. In 2014, the contribution more than tripled, to 129 million. And in 2015 they increased to 174 million.
The money has gone to two of the Foundation’s programs, primarily Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), but also the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI).
For 2017 it is planned payments to Clinton Health Access Initiative 23 million, Solberg wrote in an email to Finance newspaper. It is further down 36 percent from the current year. By comparison, ran this program 169 million in 2015.
But, no doubt these are just more “plumes of smoke” for which Hillary has absolutely no explanation.
- The 2014 Economy Lingers On Under The Hope For Something Different
Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,
For the month of July 2014, total durable goods orders exploded higher in a fit of Boeing. The growth in aircraft orders in percentage terms was so large as to be meaningless. On a seasonally-adjusted basis, total durable goods (using the latest benchmarks) went from $236.3 billion that June to $290.8 billion for July. Coming as it did in the middle of 2014 when it had seemed as if everything was on the up, it was just more embarrassment of riches for the US as the “cleanest dirty shirt” just about to be put into the washer.
Of course, the surge in transportation orders heralded nothing for the actual economy, as by the time those estimates were published (and originally the overall estimate for that month was nearly $300 billion) at the end of August 2014 the economic direction had already taken the opposite route. It was just another in a long line of positive numbers, and truly a big one, that have been consistently taken for recovery. An actual growth period, by contrast, is not one with an occasional big number, but one where those become the norm and therefore small positives are the aberration to be set aside.
We are seeing something of a repeat if in miniature with durable goods for October 2016. The seasonally-adjusted estimate for September was $228.4 billion, jumping to $239.4 billion in the latest update. Civilian aircraft orders, notoriously volatile, were up almost 140% while military aircraft orders grew by a third. Commentary has been, as you would expect, extremely positive.
Underneath, however, we find the same economy dragging on in place since the aircraft surge in July 2014. Durable goods new orders ex transportation were flat again year-over-year (-0.07%) in October for the second straight month. Likewise durable goods shipments were also practically unchanged (-0.24%). Capital goods, on the other hand, continue to contract. New orders for cap goods minus aircraft and defense orders were down 4% for the second straight month; shipments fell more than 6% in October after declining more than 5% in September.
This is, again, the same languishing US economy that has been an enormous drag on the global system. There aren’t any meaningfully different changes as indicated by durable goods by which to generate appropriate excitement. Economists and the media have, obviously, been intermittently positive about a great many positive numbers over the past 27 months of slow, uneven contraction. What has seized “market” attention is not what is clear the same but what might be different.
At this stage of almost relatively euphoric sentiment, up-to-date economic statistics will be less meaningful because “markets” are seeing what they want to see about a future that is no longer captured strictly by more of the same. That means central banks no longer so pasted to just QE or ZIRP, but more willing to try different things. As it pertains to the election, there is a Trump administration that could, in theory, provide “stimulus” and not just in the same wasteful, ARRA manner; changes to taxation, regulation, etc.
In other words, the future has suddenly become a blank canvas upon which to project all the positives that were once claimed about “stimulus” in the generic sense. People largely still believe that it works; if anything is different especially after 2015 and the start to 2016 it is more that the public now clearly sees at the very least QE and central bank “stimulus” wasn’t of the wrong quantity but at least the wrong kind. If the prior regime was populated by the “wrong” stimulus, then it might be a far better future should the next one find the “right” methods.
No matter what durable goods, or any economic account for that matter, shows about the current economy it will be difficult to overcome this irrationality, which is now almost purely focused on what could be just over the horizon. Since the figures for the rest of 2016 will be rightly considered as part of the “old” “stimulus” regime that failed, unless they start to indicate a more serious slide I can’t imagine the mainstream will give them much thought at all – except where, like aircraft orders, it might seem to fit the narrative of a pickup.
The only real question is whether or not what central banks or the Trump people might do different is actually different. A second ARRA is going to produce the same results as the first, which included a great deal of tax cuts. Some have started to suggest that it would amount to a practical “helicopter” of stimulus without explaining why those practical “helicopters” before didn’t work, either.
In a bigger sense, however, there does not seem to be any willingness anywhere to actually take account of why the economy for more than two years has been stuck in a state of low growth and even, as the goods economy, steady contraction. It is a curious incuriosity, particularly given the irrational hope for different efforts equaling different results. If “we” don’t really know why the economy fell off rather than surged ahead as ecnomists had predicted after July 2014, then why would there be any reasonable expectation for “different” right at the start?
After all, the people who will be still running “stimulus” are those who had no idea what was going on then, less idea what that meant for the immediate future, and still today can’t explain what did happen. By that I mean all economists in general, and as far as I can tell that includes those of the forming Trump administration, as well as (for now) those in place at the Federal Reserve who are very likely to press ahead a second time to confirm that they think there isn’t actually anything immediately wrong with the economy to begin with.
It seems to be a corollary to Einstein’s definition of insanity; keep the intellectual paradigm in place but doing slightly different things and expecting very different results. Durable goods confirm that the same 2015-16 economy still lingers, a fact that none of them thought likely or even possible. It’s nice to contemplate how “new” blood might finally get it right, but is what is being proposed now actually new and different? Can you really claim to have the right answers when it seems clear that you don’t know the questions?
I suspect we are about to find out, all over again, the hard way.
- Trump Bypasses Media With Direct YouTube/Twitter Distribution As Feud With Mainstream Outlets Rages
For the past year and a half the Trump team has played the mainstream media like a fiddle. During the republican primary, he was granted millions of dollars of free air time as the unwitting mainstream outlets thought they were boosting one of Hillary’s chosen “pied piper” candidates that could be easily defeated in the general election. Then, after helping to catapult him to the republican nomination the media predictably turned on him in a blatant effort to elect their chosen candidate. Unfortunately for the mainstream media, none of their plans to destroy Trump came close to working and, in fact, he used their corrupt, biased coverage to rally his supporters which is likely a big reason for his ultimate victory.
Perhaps no one has summarized Trump’s relationship with the media and establishment institutions better than Michael Moore who famously predicted two weeks before election day that Trump’s election would be the “biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history”:
“They [working class voters] see that the elites who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate American hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him and now hate him. Thank you, media. The enemy of my enemy is who I’m voting for on November 8th.”
But now that the campaigning is finally over, the true panic is setting in for the mainstream media as Trump is threatening to cut off the one thing they have left: access.
While Trump’s decision to bypass the media in recent days (starting with the message below posted on YouTube which has received millions of views) by speaking directly with the American electorate through direct distribution outlets like YouTube and Twitter may not seem like a big deal, it has the potential to be quite revolutionary. After running a campaign that proved that blatant, and frankly insulting, pandering to various minority groups and endless cash hoards weren’t necessarily direct determinants of election success, Trump seems intent upon proving that the mainstream media can be completely bypassed in the modern world…and it is glorious to watch.
Of course, we suspect this is part of the reason for the mainstream media’s recent crusade against “fake news” outlets, of which we’re apparently one. To the extent they can discredit competitive news sources then they get to maintain their monopoly on ideas and information, and the blatant manipulation of those ideas into their own customized narratives.
As The Hill points out, Trump’s distaste for the media is starting to sow fear and panic in the mainstreamers. For evidence of that fact, one has to look no further than the outrage expressed when Trump decided to ditch the press to have a steak dinner with his family. Where was that same outrage when Hillary ditched the press on 9/11 because of her pneumonia?
White House reporters are worried about access to Trump, who didn’t allow reporters on his campaign plane and ditched media staking out Trump Tower last week to have dinner with family at New York’s 21 Club.
The president-elect’s frequent threats to the press have added to a sense that the rules for covering this White House might be different.
“Every incoming president has basic, generally agreed upon rules of the road,” said Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary for President Bill Clinton.
“The Trump team has decided they’ll blow up and the road and build a new one. Where it goes from here will be a test of how far the new president and his team want to push things, and the strength and will of the press to push back.”
As The Hill further notes, Trump has little incentive to go through traditional media outlets. Not only have they proven time and again to be an extension of the democratic party but with his social media following, Trump’s direct distribution of his message gets just as much coverage as a press conference would.
But Trump has little incentive to go through traditional media channels, some experts say.
Facebook and Twitter combine to give him one of the most powerful social media presences in the world.
He has former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon at his side in the White House, giving him a powerful ally in the massively influential world of right-wing news.
And when Trump releases a straight-to-camera video to announce his 100-day agenda — as he did this week, in lieu of a press conference — it elicits the same volume of coverage as a press conference would.
Trump was lavished with billions of dollars worth of free airtime and exposure during the campaign, irrespective of how he chose to engage.
Press advocates are worried that the president-elect appears to be holding all the cards.
As the head of the advocacy group Free Press points out “over the last 20 to 30 years, each White House has thrown up more obstacles and become more obsessed with controlling their own message, but this is a new apex, and it’s really dangerous.” While we tend to agree that the disintermediation of the corrupt media may be dangerous for their employees…we suspect the rest of us will be just fine.
- Europe: Let's Self-Destruct!
Submitted by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,
- A reasonable question that many Europeans might ask would be whether it is not perhaps time to review priorities?
- Perhaps the time has come to look at whether it remains worth it, in terms of the potential loss of human life, to remain party to the 1961 Convention, which would prohibit a country from stripping a returning ISIS fighter of his citizenship in order to prevent him from entering the country?
- The terrorist as poor, traumatized victim who needs help seems to be a recurring theme among European politicians. But what about the rights of the poor, traumatized citizens who elected these politicians?
Roughly 30,000 foreign and European Islamic State fighters from around 100 different countries, who have gone to Syria, Iraq and Libya, could spread across the continent once the terror group is crushed in its Iraqi stronghold, warned Karin von Hippel, director-general of the UK military think tank, Royal United Services Institute, speaking to the Express on October 26:
"I think once they lose territory in Iraq and Syria and probably Libya… they will likely go back to a more insurgent style operation versus a terrorist group that wants to try and hold onto territory… There has been about 30,000 foreign fighters that have gone in from about 100 countries to join. Not all of them have joined ISIS, some have joined al-Qaeda, Kurds, and other groups, but the vast majority have gone to join ISIS. These people will disperse. Some of them have already been captured or killed but many will disperse and they'll go to European countries…They may not go back to where they came from and that is definitely keeping security forces up at night in many, many countries".
Perhaps these scenarios are really keeping security forces up at night in many countries. Judging by the continued influx of predominantly young, male migrants of fighting age into Europe, however, one might be excused for thinking that European politicians themselves are not losing any sleep over potential new terrorist attacks.
According to a report by Radio Sweden, for example:
"Around 140 Swedes have so far returned after having joined the violent groups in Syria and Iraq. Now several municipalities are preparing to work with those who want to defect. This could include offering practical support to defectors."
The municipality of Lund has dealt with this issue, and Malmö, Borlänge and Örebro have similar views. As Radio Sweden reports:
"Lund's conclusion is that defectors from violent extremist groups should be handled like defectors from other environments, such as organized crime. After an investigation of the person's needs, the municipality can help with housing, employment or livelihood."
According to Sweden's "national coordinator against violent extremism," Christoffer Carlsson:
"…You need to be able to reintegrate into the job market, you may need a driver's license, debt settlement and shelter. When people leave, they want to leave for something else, but they do not have the resources for it, so it is difficult for them to realize their plan. If they do not receive support, the risk is great that they will be unable to leave the extremist environment, but instead fall back into it."
Anna Sjöstrand, Lund's municipal coordinator against violent extremism, says that people who have served their penalty should all have support. Last year, the Municipality of Örebro received criticism for offering an internship to a young man who returned after having been in Syria.
"There may be such criticism, but for me it is difficult to think along those lines. They get the same help as others who seek help from us. We cannot say that because you made a wrong choice, you have no right to come back and live in our society," says Anna Sjöstrand.
According to Sweden Radio, several of the municipalities stress that people who commit crimes should be sentenced and serve their penalties before they can receive support. According to Amir Rostami, who works with the national coordinator against violent extremism:
"If you are suspected of a crime, the investigation of the crime always comes first. But as long as there is no suspicion of a crime, then it is in our own interest to help those that come out of this extremist environment. The consequences for society are quite large if you do not."
So, in Sjöstrand's words, travelling to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS, a bestial Islamic terrorist organization with its sexual enslavement of women and children, rapes, brutal murders of Christians, Yazidis, and other Muslims is just "a wrong choice." You know, similar to embezzling money or getting into a drunken brawl at a bar, just ordinary garden-variety crime, which should not intervene with your "right to come back and live in our society". In other words, it seems to support the standard European idea that the terrorist is the victim, not the innocent people he is out to maim, rape, and kill.
According to the Swedish view, burning Christians and Yazidis alive, gang-raping and murdering women and children, and other such "wrong choices" should not get into the way of one's "rights." It also seems to ignore the rights of members of the peaceful society who are vulnerable to being attacked. It would be logical to posit that traveling for the express purpose of joining a terrorist organization such as ISIS, which has as its explicit goal the destruction of Western nations such as Sweden, should actually lead to the forfeiture of the "right to come back and live in our society" — especially as those former ISIS fighters evidently do not consider Swedish society "their society."
Another word that comes to mind is treason. But not for Sweden, such logical moral and political choices. Better to have another go at politically correct policies, doomed to failure, at the expense of the security (and taxpayer money) of law-abiding Swedish citizens, whose rights to live without fear of violent assault, rape and terrorism clearly ceased to matter to Swedish authorities a long time ago.
This hapless attitude towards ISIS increasingly resembles criminal negligence on the part of Swedish authorities. It was recently reported that Swedish police received a complaint of incitement to racial hatred, after an unnamed Syrian-born 23-year-old used a picture of the ISIS flag as a profile picture on social media. Prosecutor Gisela Sjövall decided not to pursue legal action against the man. The reason, according to Sjövall?
"IS expresses every kind of disrespect; it is against everyone except those who belong to IS itself. There is the dilemma, it [offends] too big a group… You could say that merely waving a flag of IS in the current situation cannot be considered hate speech. It is not an expression of disrespect towards any [particular] ethnic group. It has been said there could possibly be some form of incitement, that IS urges others to commit criminal acts such as murder, but that is not the case."
Since ISIS hates absolutely everybody, according to Swedish law they can apparently engage in as much hate speech as their hearts desire. The terrorists, who are vying for a world-dominating caliphate, must be laughing their heads off.
Sjövall added that because the Nazi swastika is intrinsically linked to inciting anti-Semitism, this contravenes Swedish laws, and that maybe the ISIS flag would be considered as contravening Swedish law in 10 years.
At the rate that Swedish society is self-destructing, there may not even be much of Sweden to speak of 10 years from now.
On June 7, 2016, it was reported that British citizen Grace "Khadija" Dare had brought her 4-year-old son, Isa Dare, to live in Sweden, in order to benefit from free health care. In February, the boy was featured in an ISIS video, blowing up four prisoners in a car (pictured above). The boy's father, a jihadist with Swedish citizenship, was killed fighting for ISIS.
In neighboring Denmark, in March 2015, a Danish MP for the Social Democrats, Trine Bramsen, said about returning ISIS fighters:
"Some constitute a danger or can become dangerous. Others need help. We have actually seen that many of those who come home have experienced such horrors that they need psychological help".
The terrorist as poor, traumatized victim who needs help seems to be a recurring theme among European politicians. But what about the rights of the poor, traumatized citizens who elected these politicians?
Denmark happens to be the European country with the most ISIS fighters returning from Syria, according to a report released in April by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague. The report shows that 50% of the people who left Denmark to fight with ISIS in Syria have returned to Denmark. The UK is second, with 48%, and then come Germany (33%), Sweden (29%), France (27%), and Austria (26%).
In Denmark, four Syrian ISIS fighters were arrested in April when they returned from Syria.
The head of the Strategic Institute of the Defense Academy in Denmark, Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen, told a Danish newspaper in April that there are not enough resources to monitor all returning ISIS fighters and thereby ensure their arrest, adding:
"But then again, not all [ISIS fighters] are identical. Some will come home and be a threat to society, whereas others will return disillusioned. If we treat everyone in the same manner, we risk pushing some of those who are in doubt even further in. If someone returns and it cannot be proven that he has committed crimes and if he, besides that, is disillusioned, then he should get help to get out."
How do you determine with certainty that someone is "disillusioned," when he could in fact be a ticking bomb waiting to commit terror?
In Denmark, the authorities decided on a prohibition to travel to Syria to join ISIS. That, however, does not solve the problem of what to do with the returning ISIS fighters. It also does not do much to prevent those potential ISIS fighters who have been frustrated in their efforts to join ISIS, from unleashing their terror on European soil instead — as ISIS has in fact commanded them to do.
Several countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, have considered revoking the citizenship of returning ISIS fighters, thereby preventing them from returning. This is certainly feasible in those cases where the person in question has dual citizenship. Political obstacles aside, however, one of the main legal obstacles to countries taking this path is the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which prohibits governments from revoking a person's nationality if it leaves them stateless.
A reasonable question that many Europeans might ask would be whether it is not perhaps time to review priorities? Perhaps the time has come to look at whether it remains worth it, in terms of the potential loss of human life, to remain party to the 1961 Convention, which would prohibit a country from stripping a returning ISIS fighter of his citizenship in order to prevent him from entering the country?
Presumably, the European people care more about staying alive than the intricacies of international law. When will European leaders mobilize the political will to act?
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...