Apr 30

Today’s News 30th April 2018

  • UK's "Generation Rent" Faces Ever-More Unaffordable Homes

    For the so-called ‘Generation Rent’, the dream of buying a house is usually a distant and unrealistic one.

    And, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, figures from the Office for National Statistics show the dream is only moving further away, too.

    Infographic: The ever-more unaffordable price of a house | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Furthermore, when comparing the ratio of median house prices in England and Wales to the average earnings, the gap is only moving in the wrong direction.

    In 1997, the rate was 3.54 in England and 3.00 in Wales. In 2016, this had jumped up to 7.72 and 5.79.

  • Move Over Chernobyl, Fukushima is Now Officially the Worst Nuclear Disaster in History

    Authored by John Laforge of CounterPunch

    The radiation dispersed into the environment by the three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima-Daiichi in Japan has exceeded that of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, so we may stop calling it the “second worst” nuclear power disaster in history. Total atmospheric releases from Fukushima are estimated to be between 5.6 and 8.1 times that of Chernobyl, according to the 2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Professor Komei Hosokawa, who wrote the report’s Fukushima section, told London’s Channel 4 News then, “Almost every day new things happen, and there is no sign that they will control the situation in the next few months or years.”

    Tokyo Electric Power Co. has estimated that about 900 peta-becquerels have spewed from Fukushima, and the updated 2016 TORCH Report estimates that Chernobyl dispersed 110 peta-becquerels. [1] (A Becquerel is one atomic disintegration per second. The “peta-becquerel” is a quadrillion, or a thousand trillion Becquerels.)

    Chernobyl’s reactor No. 4 in Ukraine suffered several explosions, blew apart and burned for 40 days, sending clouds of radioactive materials high into the atmosphere, and spreading fallout across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere — depositing cesium-137 in Minnesota’s milk.[2]

    The likelihood of similar or worse reactor disasters was estimated by James Asselstine of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), who testified to Congress in 1986: “We can expect to see a core meltdown accident within the next 20 years, and it … could result in off-site releases of radiation … as large as or larger than the releases … at Chernobyl. [3] Fukushima-Daiichi came 25 years later.

    Contamination of soil, vegetation and water is so widespread in Japan that evacuating all the at-risk populations could collapse the economy, much as Chernobyl did to the former Soviet Union. For this reason, the Japanese government standard for decontaminating soil there is far less stringent than the standard used in Ukraine after Chernobyl.

    Fukushima’s Cesium-137 Release Tops Chernobyl’s

    The Korea Atomic Energy Research (KAER) Institute outside of Seoul reported in July 2014 that Fukushima-Daiichi’s three reactor meltdowns may have emitted two to four times as much cesium-137 as the reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl. [4]

    To determine its estimate of the cesium-137 that was released into the environment from Fukushima, the Cesium-137 release fraction (4% to the atmosphere, 16% to the ocean) was multiplied by the cesium-137 inventory in the uranium fuel inside the three melted reactors (760 to 820 quadrillion Becquerel, or Bq), with these results:

    Ocean release of cesium-137 from Fukushima (the worst ever recorded): 121.6 to 131.2 quadrillion Becquerel (16% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq). Atmospheric release of Cesium-137 from Fukushima: 30.4 to 32.8 quadrillion Becquerel (4% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq).

    Total release of Cesium-137 to the environment from Fukushima: 152 to 164 quadrillion Becquerel. Total release of Cesium-137 into the environment from Chernobyl: between 70 and 110 quadrillion Bq.

    The Fukushima-Daiichi reactors’ estimated inventory of 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq (petabecquerels) of Cesium-137 used by the KAER Institute is significantly lower than the US Department of Energy’s estimate of 1,300 quadrillion Bq. It is possible the Korean institute’s estimates of radioactive releases are low.

    In Chernobyl, 30 years after its explosions and fire, what the Wall St. Journal last year called “the $2.45 billion shelter implementation plan” was finally completed in November 2016. A huge metal cover was moved into place over the wreckage of the reactor and its crumbling, hastily erected cement tomb. The giant new cover is 350 feet high, and engineers say it should last 100 years — far short of the 250,000-year radiation hazard underneath.

    The first cover was going to work for a century too, but by 1996 was riddled with cracks and in danger of collapsing. Designers went to work then engineering a cover-for-the-cover, and after 20 years of work, the smoking radioactive waste monstrosity of Chernobyl has a new “tin chapeau.” But with extreme weather, tornadoes, earth tremors, corrosion and radiation-induced embrittlement it could need replacing about 2,500 times.

    John Laforge’s field guide to the new generation of nuclear weapons is featured in the March/April 2018 issue of CounterPunch magazine.

    Notes.

    [1] Duluth News-Tribune & Herald, “Slight rise in radioactivity found again in state milk,” May 22, 1986; St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch, “Radiation kills Chernobyl firemen,” May 17, 1986; Minneapolis StarTribune, “Low radiation dose found in area milk,” May 17, 1986.

    [2] Ian Fairlie, “TORCH-2016: An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,” March 2016 (https://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/GLOBAL_TORCH%202016_rz_WEB…).

    [3] James K. Asselstine, Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Testimony in Nuclear Reactor Safety: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, May 22 and July 16, 1986, Serial No. 99-177, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987.

    [4] Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 74, July 2014, pp. 61-70; ENENews.org, Oct. 20, 2014.

  • How China's "Pragmatic Authoritarianism" And Russia's "Illiberal Democracy" Have Averted "The End Of History"

    Since the historic triumph of President Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, political analysts have pontificated about how the rise of Trumpism was a direct repudiation of a popular idea advanced by Francis Fukuyama in his 1992 book: “The End of History and the Last Man”. That book, published shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, speculated that liberal Western democracy had categorically defeated Communism to become the world’s de fact dominant ideology. It was only a matter of time, Fukuyama posited, before the rest of the world embraces democracy, and, once this happens, the world will settle into an enduring peace.

    For better or worse, the events of the last few years have eroded the credibility of liberal democracies to the point that their continued dominance no longer looks assured even in the west. For evidence of this, one need look no further than Hungary, Poland and Russia, “illiberal democracies” – a term coined by popular Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – that have won the popular support of the people.

    But by far the biggest threat to US-style democracy is, of course, China – which is already the world’s most populous country and will soon surpass the US as the world’s largest economy, too.

    Communism

    China’s model of pragmatic authoritarianism has succeeded in delivering sustained benefits to even the poorest Chinese – the country’s middle class is growing at a rate unmatched anywhere in the developing world.

    One need only compare its political system to India’s shambolic democracy to see the stark difference in outcomes. India has failed to implement the reforms it needs to maximize its growth potential, while China has proven itself capable of radical and muscular policy changes like doubling the number of solar panels in use over the course of a single year (2016).

    Cambridge Professor David Runciman examined these issues in greater detail in an essay that’s essentially a condensed version of his upcoming book “How Democracy Ends”. It was published as this week’s “Saturday Essay” in the Wall Street Journal.

    Read it in full below:

    In his 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man,” Francis Fukuyama famously declared the triumph of liberal democracy as the model of governance toward which all of humankind was heading. It was a victory on two fronts. The Western democracies held the clear advantage over their ideological rivals in material terms, thanks to their proven ability to deliver general prosperity and a rising standard of living for most citizens. At the same time, to live in a modern democracy was to be given certain guarantees that you would be respected as a person. Everyone got to have a say, so democracy delivered personal dignity as well.

    Results plus respect is a formidable political mix. The word “dignity” appears 118 times in “The End of History,” slightly more often than the words “peace” and “prosperity” combined. For Mr. Fukuyama, that is what made democracy unassailable: Only it could meet the basic human need for material comfort and the basic human desire for what he called “recognition” (a concept borrowed from Hegel, emphasizing the social dimension of respect and dignity). Set against the lumbering, oppressive, impoverished regimes of the Soviet era, it was no contest.

    Yet today, barely two decades into the 21st century, the contest has been renewed. It is no longer a clash of ideologies, as during the Cold War. Western democracy is now confronted by a form of authoritarianism that is far more pragmatic than its communist predecessors. A new generation of autocrats, most notably in China, have sought to learn the lessons of the 20th century just like everyone else. They too are in the business of trying to offer results plus respect. It is the familiar package, only now it comes in a nondemocratic form.

    Since the 1980s, the Chinese regime has had remarkable success in raising the material condition of its population. Over that period, nondemocratic China has made strikingly greater progress in reducing poverty and increasing life expectancy than democratic India: People in China live on average nearly a decade longer than their Indian counterparts and per capita GDP is four times higher. The poverty rate in China is now well below 10% and still falling fast, whereas in India it remains at around 20%. The benefits of rapid economic growth have been made tangible for many hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens, and the regime understands that its survival depends on the economic success story continuing.

    But China’s rise has been underpinned by more than just improved living standards. There has been a simultaneous drive for greater dignity for the Chinese people. This is not, however, the dignity of the individual citizen as we’ve come to know it in the West. It is collective national dignity, and it comes in the form of demanding greater respect for China itself: Make China great again! The self-assertion of the nation, not the individual, is what completes the other half of the pragmatic authoritarian package.

    Chinese citizens do not have the same opportunities for democratic self-expression as do citizens in the West or India. Personal political dignity is hard to come by in a society that stifles freedom of speech and allows for the arbitrary exercise of power. Nationalism is offered as some compensation, but this only works for individuals who are Han Chinese, the majority national group. It does not help in Tibet or among Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang.

    On the material side of the equation, China’s pragmatic authoritarians have certain advantages. They can target and manage the benefits of breakneck growth to ensure that they are relatively widely shared. Like other developed economies, China is experiencing rising inequality between the very richest and the rest. But the rest are never far from their rulers’ minds. The Chinese middle class is continuing to expand at a dramatic pace. In the West, by contrast, it is the middle class, whose wages and standard of living have been squeezed in recent decades, who feel like they are being left behind.

    The material benefits of democracy are much more haphazardly distributed. At any given moment, plenty of people feel excluded from them, and the constant changing of course in democratic politics—“We zig and we zag,” as Barack Obama said after Donald Trump’s victory—is a reflection of these persistent frustrations. Democracies, because they give everyone a say, are bound to be fickle. Pragmatic authoritarianism has shown itself more capable of planning for the long-term.

    This is revealed not only by the massive recent Chinese investment in infrastructure projects—in transport, in industrial production, in new cities that spring up seemingly from nowhere—but also by the growing concern of China’s rulers with environmental sustainability. China is now the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter, but it is also at the forefront of attempts to tackle the issue. Only in China would it be possible to double solar capacity in a single year, as happened in 2016.

    Western visitors often come back from China astonished by the pace of change and the lack of obstacles in its path. Things appear to get done almost overnight. That is what happens when you don’t have to worry about the democratic dignity of anyone who might stand in the way.

    Beijing’s reliance on the continuation of rapid economic growth comes with significant risks. The great long-term strength of modern democracies is precisely their ability to change course when things go wrong. They are flexible. The danger of the pragmatic authoritarian alternative is that when the immediate benefits start to dry up, it may be difficult to find another basis for political legitimacy. Pragmatism may not be enough. Nor, in the end, will national self-assertion, if it increases the dangers of geopolitical instability.

    The central political contests of the 20th century were between rival and bitterly opposed worldviews. In the 21st century, the contest is between competing versions of the same fundamental underlying goals. Both sides promise economic growth and widespread prosperity—tangible results in terms of material well-being. But they differ on the question of dignity: The West offers it to individual citizens, while China offers it more diffusely, to the nation as a whole.

    The remarkable rise of China shows that this constitutes a genuine alternative. But is it a genuine rival in the West? Might democratic voters be tempted by this offer?

    One of the striking features of the last century’s battle of ideologies was that the rivals to liberal democracy always had their vocal supporters within democratic states. Marxism-Leninism had its fellow-travelers right to the bitter end, and such people can still be found in Western politics ( Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, potentially the next prime minister and finance minister of the United Kingdom, have never given up the struggle). By contrast, the Chinese approach has almost no one in the West actively advocating its merits. That does not mean, however, that it is without appeal.

    Mr. Trump’s electoral pitch in 2016 came straight out of the pragmatic authoritarian playbook. He promised to deliver collective dignity, at least for the majority group of white Americans: Make America great again! Stop letting other people push us around! At the same time, he promised to use the state much more directly and forcefully to improve the material circumstances of his supporters. He would bring the jobs back, triple the growth rate and protect everyone’s welfare benefits. What Mr. Trump did not offer was much by way of personal dignity: not in his own conduct, not in his treatment of the people around him, and not in his contemptuous attitude toward the basic democratic values of tolerance and respect.

    But there are serious limits in the West to the appeal of the Chinese model. First, unlike his counterparts in Beijing, Mr. Trump has shown little capacity to deliver real benefits to the Americans who elected him. He is hamstrung by his own lack of pragmatism and impulse control. He has also been constrained by the checks and balances that democratic politics puts in his way. For now, he looks more like a familiar type of democratic huckster than a harbinger of future authoritarianism in the U.S.: He has over-promised and under-delivered.

    More fundamentally, it is still very hard to imagine the citizens of Western democracies acquiescing in the loss of personal dignity that would come with abandoning their rights of democratic dissent. We are far too attached to our continuing capacity to throw the scoundrels out of office when we get the chance. Voters in Europe and the U.S. have been attracted lately by novel-sounding promises to kick over the traces of mainstream democracy, but they have not endorsed anyone threatening to take away their democratic rights. The authoritarian reflex has been limited to threats to take away the rights of others—people who supposedly “don’t belong.”

    All of these movements in the West are populist distortions of democracy, not alternatives to it. Democratic authoritarians like the recently re-elected Viktor Orban in Hungary, who describes himself as an “illiberal democrat,” take their inspiration from Vladimir Putin rather than from the Chinese Communist Party. Pragmatism in countries like Hungary and Russia comes a distant second place to scapegoating and elaborate conspiracy theories. Democracy is still talked up, but stripped of its commitment to democratic rights. Elections take place, but the choice is often an empty one.

    Chinese politics is far from immune to scapegoating and conspiracy theories. Its leaders pose as strongmen, and Xi Jinping has recently cemented his tight hold on power by being installed as leader for life. But as a viable alternative to democracy, Beijing has something to offer that Moscow and Budapest, to say nothing of today’s Washington, can only gesture toward: Consistent, practical results for the majority.

    The ongoing appeal of the Chinese model will vary from place to place. It may just stretch to include the edges of our own politics, though it will struggle to reach its heart. It is more immediately appealing in those parts of Africa and Asia where breakneck economic growth is both a realistic prospect and a pressing need. Rapid economic development, coupled with national self-assertion, has an obvious attraction for states that need to deliver results in a relatively short period of time. In these places, democracy often looks like the riskier bet.

    In Western societies, the Chinese alternative is unlikely to capture voters’ imaginations, even as it shows them what they might be missing. Still, the triumph of liberal democracy appears a lot more contingent than it did three decades ago. The temptations to try something different are real, even if the most successful current alternative remains a distant prospect for most voters.

    There’s reason to worry about the weaknesses of our democracies. The kind of respect they provide may prove insufficient for 21st-century citizens. The premium that democracy places on personal dignity has traditionally been expressed through extensions of the franchise. Giving people the vote is the best way to let them know that they count. But when almost all adults are able to vote—in theory, if not in practice—citizens inevitably look for fresh ways to secure greater respect.

    The rise of identity politics in the West is an indication that the right to take part in elections is not enough anymore. Individuals seek the dignity that comes with being recognized for who they are. They don’t just want to be listened to; they want to be heard. Social networks have provided a new forum through which these demands can be voiced. Democracies are struggling to work out how to meet them.

    Elected politicians increasingly tiptoe around the minefield of identity politics, unsure which way to turn, terrified of giving offense, except when they deliberately court it. At the same time, they have grown dependent on technical knowledge—from bankers, scientists, doctors, software engineers—to deliver continuing practical benefits. As citizens find less personal dignity in politics and politicians become less able to manage prosperity, the attraction that has held democracy together for so long will start to dissipate. Respect plus results is a formidable combination. When they come apart, democracy loses its unique advantage.

    The Chinese model faces serious challenges, too. There, personal dignity remains the unrealized option, and the untried temptation is to extend rights of political expression and choice. The use by the Chinese state of social networks to manage and monitor its citizens represents a concerted attempt to resist the pull of democratic dignity and to hold fast to the appeal of pragmatic authoritarian control. Just as the strains in the Western trade-off between dignity and material benefits may not be sustainable over time, the same is true of the Chinese version.

    That sweet spot, where the two come together, which Mr. Fukuyama identified as the end of history, looks increasingly remote. No one has the monopoly on respect plus results any more.

  • Movement In "Tokyo Whale" Wallet Hints At More Crypto Chaos Ahead

    If recent history is any guide, crypto traders should be bracing for some serious volatility in the price of bitcoin and bitcoin cash during the coming days and weeks.

    And no, it won’t be David Tepper’s “tepid” (no pun intended) assessment of crypto’s value. Rather, as The Next Web’s crypto vertical pointed out, the Mt. Gox bankruptcy trustee (who has in the past denied that his trades had ANY impact on the price of bitcoin even though his trades almost exactly correspond to some of the largest dips in recent months), has moved 16,000 bitcoin and 16,000 bitcoin cash to two separate wallets – a decision that TNW says is a sign of another impending dump.

    The 16,000 BTC have been transferred to the address below…

    One

    …While 16,000 BCH have been sent to this address:

    BTCChart2

    For what it’s worth, TNW wasn’t able to confirm that the accounts are attached to an exchange – something that would firm up its thesis that more sales are imminent. However, it did point out that this is the first time that Mt. Gox trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi has moved any coins from the Mt. Gox wallet since February…

    BTC

    …Of course, crypto bulls will likely wince when they recall how THAT turned out.

    In a report released back in March,  the so-called Tokyo Whale (no, not that Tokyo Whale) revealed that he had sold roughly $400 million worth of bitcoin and bitcoin cash beginning late last year and ending in February. But despite the unprecedented crash that bitcoin experienced during the first quarter, Kobayashi insisted in the report that his selling had nothing to do with the negative price activity.

    But describing that claim as “specious” would be almost too charitable. Instead, by offering this explanation, Kobayashi, pictured below, is probably engaging in some badly needed CYA – given that he’s obligated to sell the coins at the best price possible to help reimburse Mt. Gox customers who lost everything when the exchange collapsed back in February 2014.

    Those same customers should at least have some hope that they might soon be made whole (or at least partly whole) after years of waiting. Now that Kobayashi has finally realized some cash gains, the trustee has recently recently started making some payouts.

    Kobayashi

    But one crypto trader said during a conference appearance this past week that the wallet does appear to belong to an exchange desk , which would signal that another dump will follow in the coming weeks.

    “It appears that the Mt. Gox trustees have moved the funds to a wallet belonging to an exchange desk,” cryptocurrency trader and speaker Ivo Jonkers told Hard Fork. “The last time this happened, Mt. Gox proceeded to sell the funds at market rate, practically sending the entire market in the red.”

    “I wouldn’t be surprized if this happens again,” he speculated.

    Bitcoin has been climbing in April, but has recently run into some resistance around the $9,000 level – a level around which it has been fluctuating in recent days.

    But if this ominous indicator proves correct, early May could be a bloodbath. So, instead of “Sell in May and Go Away”, bitcoin traders should keep a watchful eye out for opportunities to “buy the Mt. Gox crypto dip”.

  • Former CIA Officer: Scarier Than Bolton, Think Haley For President

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Nikki Haley is America’s face to the international community. She is the Ugly American personified, thinking that American Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations…

    The musical chairs playing out among the senior officials that make up the President Donald Trump White House team would be amusing to watch but for the genuine damage that it is doing to the United States. The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in protecting the environment. It also means that well-funded and disciplined lobbies and pressure groups are having a field day, befuddling ignorant administrators with their “fact sheets” and successfully promoting policies that benefit no one but themselves.

    In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who surfaced in the news lately after she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House suggested that she might have been “confused” she responded that “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.” This ignited a firestorm among the Trump haters, lauding Haley as a strong and self-confident woman for standing up to the White House male bullies while also suggesting that the hapless Administration had not bothered to inform one of its senior diplomats of a policy change. It also produced a flurry of Haley for higher office tweets based on what was described as her “brilliant riposte” to the president.

    One over-the-top bit of effusion from a former Haley aide even suggested that her “deft rebuttal” emphasizes her qualities, enthusing that “What distinguishes her from the star-struck sycophants in the White House is that she understands the intersection of strong leadership and public service, where great things happen” and placing her on what is being promoted as the short list of future presidential candidates.

    For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who “discovered” Sarah Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary’s point of view; both are reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.

     She’s Locked and Loaded

    The greater problem right now is that Nikki Haley is America’s face to the international community, even more than the Secretary of State. She has used her bully pulpit to do just that, i.e. bully, and she is ugly America personified, having apparently decided that something called American Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations. In her mind, the United States can do what it wants globally because it has a God-given right to do so, a viewpoint that doesn’t go down well with many countries that believe that they have a legal and moral right to be left alone and remain exempt from America’s all too frequent military interventions.

    Haley: Locked and Loaded (UN Poto)

    Nikki Haley sees things differently, however. During her 15 months at the United Nations she has been instrumental in cutting funding for programs that she disapproves of and has repeatedly threatened military action against countries that disagree with U.S. policies. Most recently, in the wake of the U.S. cruise missile attack against Syria, she announced that the action was potentially only the first step. She declared that Washington was “locked and loaded,” prepared to exercise more lethal military options if Syria and its Russian and Iranian supporters did not cease and desist from the use of chemical weapons. Ironically, the cruise missile attack was carried out even though the White House had no clue as to what had actually happened and it now turns out that the entire story, spread by the terrorist groups in Syria and their mouthpieces, has begun to unravel. Will Nikki Haley apologize? I would suspect that if she doesn’t do confusion she doesn’t do apologies either.

    Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy “experts” to help shape her public utterances, which are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Unfortunately, being a neocon mouthpiece makes her particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. She has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office with only minimal vetting by the Trump Administration, and, as in the recent imbroglio over her “confusion,” it is never quite clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House.

    She Has Her Own Foreign Policy

    Haley has her own foreign policy. She has declared that Russia “is not, will not be our friend” and has lately described the Russians as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children. From the start of her time at the U.N., Haley has made it clear that she is neoconservatism personified and she has done nothing since to change that impression. In December 2017 she warned the U.N. that she was “taking names” and threatened retaliation against any country that was so “disrespectful” as to dare to vote against Washington’s disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which she also helped to bring about.

    As governor of South Carolina, Haley first became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel through her signing of a bill punishing supporters of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Immediately upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that “nowhere has the U.N.’s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel” and vowed that the “days of Israel bashing are over.” On a recent visit to Israel, she was feted and honored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She was also greeted by rounds of applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying “When I come to AIPAC I am with friends.”

    Nikki Haley’s embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: “Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?” Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking every Palestinian.

    She’s Decided She Wants Regime Change

    Haley is particularly highly critical of both Syria and Iran, reflecting the Israeli bias. She has repeatedly said that regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority, even when the White House was saying something different. She has elaborated on an Administration warning that it had “identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime” by tweeting “…further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people.” At one point, Haley warned “We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people.”

    At various U.N. meetings, though Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of institutional bias towards Israel, she has never addressed the issue that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her description of Israel as a “close ally” is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. Nor has she spoken up about the more recent shooting of three thousand unarmed Gazan demonstrators by Israeli Army sharpshooters, which is a war crime.

    Haley’s hardline on Syria reflects the Israeli bias, and her consistent hostility to Russia is a neoconservative position. A White House warning that it had “identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime led to a Haley elaboration in a tweet that “…further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people.” Earlier, on April 12, 2017 after Russia blocked a draft U.N. resolution intended to condemn the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, which subsequently turned out to be a false flag, Haley said, “We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people.”

    Bolton: Not as badas Nikki.

    Haley is particularly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli and neocon viewpoints. She claimed on April 20, 2017 during her first session as president of the U.N. Security Council, that Iran and Hezbollah had “conducted terrorist acts” for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She stated in June 2017 that the Security Council’s praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in “illicit missile launches,” “support for terrorist groups,” and “arms smuggling,” while “stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve.” All are perspectives that might easily be challenged.

    So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives’ dream ambassador to the United Nations–full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington’s preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president. Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong, one suspects that Haley’s assertion that she does not do confusion is only the beginning if she succeeds in her apparent quest for the highest office in the land. Worse than John Bolton? Absolutely.

  • Dysfunctional CalPERS Board Distracted By Petty Squabbling As Fund Lurches Toward Bankruptcy

    California’s perennially underfunded pension system is struggling with an internecine conflict among its governing board members that some observers worry could impact the fund’s performance as it goes all-in on “creative” scam financials and projections that have pushed the fund further into the bubbly equities.

    And what’s worse, the dispute is escalating just as CalPERS is heading into its busy season: Seemingly never-ending stream of annual shareholder meetings where CalPERS makes always unwelcome activist recommendations to the companies in which it owns shares.

    Brown

    The conflict started when newly elected CalPERS administrative board member Margaret Brown, a SoCal school district administrator who unseated an incumbent CalPERS advisory board member during last fall’s election, leaked a video to the press purporting to show that she had been locked out of her office. In the footage, she suggests that the lock-out was the work of board chairwoman Priya Mathur, who has clashed with Brown on a number of issues including allegations that she leaked sensitive information to the press. Mathur insists the lockout wasn’t intentional, and was instead a glitch in the board’s security system.

    But that excuse did little to quiet hostilities. Brown has since leaked a story to a friendly financial blog about her conflict with Mathur, which has only further inflamed the situation.

    Here’s more from the Sacramento Bee.

    CalPERS Board of Administration member Margaret Brown recorded herself failing to open the door, shared the video with a friendly financial blog and allowed it be posted to YouTube under a headline calling the incident an “illegal lockout.” “I have a badge and I’m trying to get in my office, and, yeah, it doesn’t work. Very, very nice,” she says in the video.

    Her assumption that she was being “locked out” and her decision to share the video on social media are signs of escalating tension on the board that handles $350 billion in assets for 1.9 million California public employees and retirees.

    Brown declined an interview request from The Sacramento Bee. She wrote in an email, “I was elected as an outsider and defeated an incumbent who had the endorsement of nearly every then-member of the board, including Mathur. So it’s not surprising, though disappointing, that some of the people who opposed my candidacy have continued to make me unwelcome, to the point of interfering with my rights and privileges as a board member.”

    The conflict first came into view of the public when Brown theatrically declared that she feared being arrested at the next board meeting – which swiftly aroused the interest of the press.

    Their rift blew into the open at a public meeting where Brown asked whether she would be arrested for showing up at the job California public employees and retirees elected her to do.

    The conflict is “extraordinary,” said Charles Elson, the director for the Center of Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “It’s unusual with a large pension fund where you have seemingly dysfunctional conflict. They’re going to have to resolve it. It’s not good for the fund.”

    The conflict has also aroused widespread interest since Brown ran as a reformer and upset a longtime incumbent – something that her peers on the board haven’t forgiven her for, she alleges.

    In some ways, the drama at CalPERS is a hangover from last fall’s election. Brown as an underdog challenger unseated union-backed incumbent Michael Bilbrey.

    Brown cast herself as a watchdog for retirees and Bilbrey as an uncritical board member; Bilbrey’s campaign drew attention to four settlements one of Brown’s previous employers paid to resolve workplace retaliation claims that initially named her.

    Brown declined an interview request from The Sacramento Bee. She wrote in an email, “I was elected as an outsider and defeated an incumbent who had the endorsement of nearly every then-member of the board, including Priya Mathur. So it’s not surprising, though disappointing, that some of the people who opposed my candidacy have continued to make me unwelcome, to the point of interfering with my rights and privileges as a board member.”

    Some board members told the Bee that Brown and Mathur’s deteriorating relationship wouldn’t impact the fund’s performance – and added that it would likely be put to rest at the next CalPERS board meeting, where the organization is set to review procedures for how board members are disciplined.

    Board member Bill Slaton said the public disagreements were not “irreversible.”

    “I think that any organization as large and complex as CalPERS is going to have disputes and is going to have from time to time conflict. That is all the more reason for us to put as much effort as possible into resolving disagreements in ways that advance the mission of CalPERS,” he said.

    New board member David Miller viewed the conflict as a learning curve for Brown and Mathur. He considered Mathur’s reprimand to Brown as an “extremely judicious” message not to bring visitors into restricted areas again.

    He and other board members said they’d like CalPERS to hold an open discussion on how board members are disciplined.

    “The board doesn’t really have clear, systematic tools to deal with those issues,” he said.

    But regardless of how this dispute is resolved, the pension fund which has been described as “near insolvency” by a former board member will still need to figure out how it can right itself and return to a path of long-term sustainability, before the resources in its fund are drained by overly generous pension benefits which cannot be supported by returns or current contributions. Back in February, former board member Steve Westly made the following admission after the fund voted to increase the amount of contributions made by California’s cities by making a “relatively small” ($350 billion) change to its amortization policy.

    As things stand now, CalPERS, once more than 100 percent funded, now has scarcely two-thirds of what it would need to fully cover all of the pension promises to current and future retirees. And that assumes it will hit a lofty investment earnings target of 7% per year, which many authorities have criticized as too optimistic.

    At some point, the board members will need to band together to make an unpopular decision (cutting benefits) that could risk all of them being thrown out by the public union employees who elect them.

    But as long as this squabbling continues, the already remote likelihood of the board embracing radical change continues to shrink.

  • CIA Whistleblower: Trump Is Doing What Kennedy Tried To

    Via Greg Hunters’ USA Watchdog blog,

    Former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp says what is going on with Donald J. Trump “is an ongoing coup to remove a duly elected President.” Shipp contends, “This is a huge constitutional crisis like the country has never seen before. This makes Watergate look like a Sunday school class.”

    On Friday, Shipp and other retired top officials at the CIA, FBI, DOJ and NSA held a press conference and demanded Attorney General Jeff Sessions prosecute top Obama era officials for obvious crimes against the incoming Trump Administration. Shipp says,

    “We have a coup within our government right now at the senior levels at the CIA, DOJ and the FBI attempting to unseat a duly elected President who was elected by the American people and remove him from office…

    This is, at worst, treason with senior officials in the shadow government or Deep State . . . to attack Donald Trump and remove him from office. . . . We have not seen anything like this since the Presidency of John F. Kennedy (JFK), when CIA Director Allen Dulles attacked him, and we saw what happened there…

    There is crystal clear evidence that the CIA was, at least, involved with the cover-up of the JFK assassination.  Now, we have the same thing happening again…

    Remember what Chuck Schumer said, and it was chilling.  He said, ‘If you cross the intelligence community, they can hit back at you six ways from Sunday.’  That’s what we are seeing now.  It’s collusion or a coup with senior officials at the FBI, DOJ and CIA along with Robert Mueller to unseat an elected president.”

    Shipp goes on to explain, “There is essentially a civil war involving parts of senior management and upper parts of our government that is occurring in the United States. It’s between the ‘Dark’ side and the ‘Constitutional’ side.”

    “There has never been anything like this in history.  It is extremely serious, and this is an extremely serious hour for our government and especially for our constitutional freedoms…

    This essentially is a global criminal cabal that has penetrated into our government and now has senior level officials colluding and, I would argue, conspiring to unseat this president.”

    In closing, Shipp says, “People need to understand that the Democrat Party today is not the Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy.”

    “The Democrat Party with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is more Marxist than anything else.  They think the Constitution should be a ‘progressive’ document.  In other words, the Constitution is outdated and should be redone.  They are both directly connected into George Soros, who wants to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. government…

    The Democrat Party is now made up of Marxists and leftists that have penetrated that entire organization. . . . Their entire goal is to change our form of government and destroy our sovereignty.”

    Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with CIA whistleblower Kevin Shipp, founder of the website ForTheLoveofFreedom.net.

  • Massive Fireballs Light Up Syrian Sky After Israeli Strike; "Dozens" Of Iranian Soldiers Reportedly Killed

    Update 2: Multiple early unconfirmed reports from journalists inside Syria have put casualties at 40 killed and 60 wounded, mainly from the Zaynabiyoun Iranian-backed group which was located at the 47th brigade supply base targeted in Hama.

    In Aleppo 7 rockets were reported to have exploded in apparently empty areas around Aleppo international airport. There are no reports of injuries or deaths in Aleppo, but images show an area was clearly hit.

    As we mentioned previously, the strikes produced a small earthquake as monitors in Lebanon and Turkey recorded seismic activity that registered over 2 on the Richter scale.

    Neither Israel nor the United States has yet to formally acknowledge the sizable missile attack, and there’s some speculation in early Western media reporting that it could have been a U.S. coalition action, as it came the same day that pro-Syrian government militias clashed with US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near the eastern city of Deir Ezzor.

    Notably, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this month his country will continue “to move against Iran in Syria,” and last Thursday Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman vowed to strike at any attempt by Iran to establish a “military foothold” in Syria.

    * * *

    Update: initial reports of mass injuries and perhaps casualties following the Iranian strike appear accurate, and as reporters on the ground located at the Hama National Hospital show, “civilians are donating blood for the Soldiers & Civilians who were wounded by the Israeli Israel Air Strikes tonight.”

    * * *

    Syrian state news reports a possible foreign attack on military bases in Hama and Aleppo provinces, citing multiple reports and videos now circulating which show massive fireballs lighting up the night sky. 

    Dozens of pro-government social media accounts are claiming an Israeli strike on Brigade 47 weapons depot in Hama Sunday night. Syrian sate media says rockets from an “unspecified enemy” hit military locations inside Syria, citing “a new aggression with hostile missiles” but stopped short of identifying the aggressor.    

    Danny Makki — a well-known journalist reporting from on the ground in Syria — also reports an official military source as saying “A hostile Foreign attack took place at locations in Hama and Aleppo at 10:30 local time tonight.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Makki further reports “the attacks this evening mainly targeted locations/positions with a strong presence of Iranian backed militias.” This indicates that the likely attacker is Israel, though still not immediately confirmed. 

    There are also widespread rumors of the recent landing of an Iranian transport plane at Hama Military Airport, possibly targeted in the attack, and reports that explosions were so big due to a direct hit on ammunition warehouses. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Pro-rebel media also appears to be uploading footage of the strike — apparently so big it could be seen for miles — and these sources are also confirming a foreign military attack on government locations. Makki notes the airstrikes “caused an earthquake measuring 2.6 on the Richter scale.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Iranian state media has also confirmed the strikes amidst rumors that Iranian military personnel were targeted in the attacks. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to Makki, citing Middle East experts, the Israelis might “continue striking these different targets and there are between 20-25 targets to choose from so it will play out considerably.”

    Should Israel be confirmed to have carried out the strikes, it would be the third such high level Israeli attack on Syria within a month. 

    Meanwhile according to unconfirmed Twitter reports, “dozens upon dozens” of Iranian soldiers were killed in the attack.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    What is concering is that the attacks take place after Putin personally warned Netanyahu against further strikes in Syria.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Developing story.

  • Bill Smead: "Two Things Collided In 1987 And The Market Fell 40% In 78 Days"

    Submitted by Finanz und Wirtschaft

    Bargain hunters have a hard time in today’s financial markets. That’s especially true in the United States where equity valuations – even after the recent correction – remain at elevated levels and the enormous popularity of stocks like Amazon and Netflix has caused the market to narrow significantly. “Right now, we have the highest concentration of technology in the S&P 500 since the end of 1999″, observes Bill Smead. The renowned value investor from Seattle warns that this will end ugly and lead to a 1987 like market crash.

    Nonetheless, the founder of Smead Capital Management sees no reason to panic for astute investors. He argues that the American economy is on solid ground and will accelerate in the coming years when the millennials are going to fuel consumption. As a field-tested contrarian, he spots buying opportunities in sectors like old media, retail and biotech.

    Q. Mr. Smead, the stock market has lost steam. Four months into 2018, the S&P 500 is basically trading at the same level as at the beginning of the year. How concerning is this slump?

    Historically, the S&P 500 spends about 80% of its time doing a pretty good job of representing the overall market. But 20% of its time it represents over popularity of just a few sectors. That’s because investors often act like a herd of sheep which are notorious creatures of habit. They will go to a pasture and it starts out being green pasture. But then they will graze until there is nothing green left and they will start digging in into the roots and stuff until it’s unhealthy.

    Q. And what’s the analogy regarding the stock market?

    Investors act like sheep by continuing to walk through the same ruts to feed at the same trough. And that’s what happens to the S&P 500. It has no ability to transfer money away because it’s a capitalization weighted index. And right now, it is a glorified growth stock index. In the prior four years until early 2018, around 60% of the gain of the index came from seven of the 500 companies. That is unbelievably narrow. So the old rule is that narrow markets end badly. The crash of 1929 would prove this, as well as 1972 and 1999. So whatever the darling of that narrowness is needs to be avoided.

    Q. Then again, so far in this bull market bets on growth stocks like Amazon and Netflix have turned out to be pretty clever investments. Why should that change now?

    You should not confuse brains with a bull market, meaning when stocks go way up for an extend time everybody looks like they’ve got a lot of brains. It’s like sitting on a boat and the high tide comes in: your boat is going to float just as high as the other ones. Today, a large segment of the stock market capitalization is tied up in the euphoria surrounding the pioneering efforts of companies like Amazon, Netflix, Tesla, Facebook and Google. Right now, we have the highest concentration in the S&P 500 of technology since the end of 1999. And the market, once a great deal of success happens, wants to extrapolate and attempts to predict the future by what has been going on in the recent past. So I’m reminded of a quote by the American businessman Shelby Cullom Davis. He figured out that “the thing that makes you rich the prior twenty years is usually the thing that makes you poor the following ten.”

    Q. But isn’t there also lot of potential in new technologies like artificial intelligence and autonomous cars?

    That’s what I call a “well known fact”. A well-known fact is a body of economic information that is known by pretty much everyone in the marketplace and has been acted upon by pretty much everyone with access to capital. In effect, when the taxi driver is giving you stock tips, whatever his theory is, it’s more than likely a well-known fact. For instance, looking back at the last twelve months, it’s a well-known fact that whatever business Amazon goes into, they are likely to ruin it for the people that are already in it.

    Q. But isn’t that the case? Just look at the wave of bankruptcies in the US retail industry.

    That’s not my point. For example, at the end of 1999 the well-known fact was that the internet was going to change our lives. And it did but people lost 80 to 90% of their money with dotcom stocks. In 1929, the well-known fact was that radio was going to dominate entertainment for the next fifty years. And it did, but that didn’t stop RCA from going from $500 a share in 1929 to $5 in 1932. At the end of 1972, the well-known fact was that there were fifty growth companies, called the “Nifty Fifty”. They seemed to be oblivious to what happens to the economy and all you had to do was to buy these fifty stocks. They even were called «one decision stocks» because all you had to do was buy them. But what happened to you on these stocks, even with the companies which succeeded like Disney, McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, you lost most of your money in the next two years and you really didn’t start getting it back until 1982.

    Q. Now what does this all mean for investors in the spring of 2018?

    One of the most important factors in the investment markets right now is that the rate of interest that you use to discount future cash flows is extremely low relative to history. So in theory, the net present value of the future income streams of businesses is very high. And since interest rates have been going down since 1981 in the United States people tend to not include something else happening in their mechanism for discounting. In other words: the rate on the ten year treasury is around 3% right now and people kind of worry what would it be like at 3.25 or 3.5%. But they don’t spend a lot of time to try to figure out what it would be like at 4 to 5%.

    Q. So what would it be like?

    If the US economy improves dramatically in the next twelve months and we move from the 2% level on real GDP growth to, let’s say, 4 or 5% a year over the next two years, interest rates are going to rise a lot higher and they are going to go up fast. That means this will probably result in a bear market. It would be a bear market which has to do with overvaluation, not a bear market which has to do with earnings. And that’s what happened in 1987: The stock market went from 800 to 2700 from 1982 to 1987 and in the spring of 1987 the ten year treasury interest rate went from 7% to 10%. And when those two things collided, the market fell 40% in 78 days.

    Q. On October 19, 1987, a day that became known as “Black Monday” the Dow Jones plunged 22.6%, its largest single-day percentage drop. Nevertheless, the economy didn’t fall into a recession. What would happen today after a stock market crash like 1987?

    Another argument that’s kind of a well-known fact is that we are late in the economic cycle in the United States. So as mentioned, you can lose a lot of money betting on a well-known fact. But you can make even more money betting that a well-known fact ends up being wrong. For contrarian investors like me nothing is better than that!

    Q. Nevertheless, the last recession in the US happened around ten years ago. So we’re already looking back at one of the longest economic expansions since World War II.

    But we also had the most anemic economic recovery coming off a deep recession that we just about ever had. Today, the stock market is built around the idea that the economics that exist right now will be the same ten years from now. But in the coming years the millennials are beginning to dominate the economy of the United States. This means that the largest demographic group, which has been late to be impactful on the overall economy with home and auto buying, is just getting started. So how could the United States be late in the economic cycle when its largest adult population group is just getting started?

    Q. But aren’t millennials quite different from prior generations when it comes to spending and their lifestyle in general?

    What we know is that the number of 35 to 44-year-old Americans will growth as explosively in the next twelve years as it did when the baby boomers turned 35 to 44 years old. And when the number of 35 to 44 year olds is high you have the most people in society making really good money and they have to spend it all to make their life work. So for example, today’s number of homes is way below what is going to be needed to meet the demand of people who have waited into their 30s to have children. Also, the market thinks it knows that when the millennials are 35 to 44 years old that their choices of how they access products and services will be heavily influenced by the convenience of the internet. But no one has proposed what they are going to do with all the time they have because they aren’t doing a lot of the things their parents did.

    Q. What are the implications of this demographic shift from an investor’s perspective?

    Companies that are threatened by e-commerce are trading very, very cheaply. And that’s where we spot our best opportunities. Because if these companies have any kind of decent economics in the coming years the financial opportunity for investors is dramatically greater than when you invest in the success of companies which you have to pay a very high price to get involved in.

    Q. So in which sectors are you putting your money?

    For example, in the entertainment world. The market assumes that the distribution methods are going to be more important than the content. So Disney trades at 14 times earnings and Netflix trades right now probably at 250 because the market thinks that the distribution channel is going to be more valuable and that those distribution channels are preeminent to the actual creation of content. That’s why companies like Disney and Discovery Communications are on sale on a relative basis right now. And that creates opportunities. In the case of Discovery, we know that one of their channels called HGTV has the best audience and the best advertising experience for an advertiser with respect to women in the age of 30 to 50. So it really doesn’t make any difference whether you are going to watch HGTV’s shows on Netflix, on replay or live being streamed by Hulu or on cable.

    Q. Where else do you see value?

    A great question to ask someone who runs a portfolio is how happy they would be owning shares in the next bear market. We went through the worst bear market in 80 years in 2008-2009 and the quality of the companies identified by our eight criteria is one of the things which got us through that torturous decline. Most of these criteria are quite simple like meeting an economic need, high and consistent profitability, long history of a constantly high cash flows, immense balance sheet strength, strong insider ownership, shareholder friendliness and of course: Is the stock a bargain compared to the last five to ten years? Right now, our portfolio trades at 13 times what the companies are expected to make in earnings this year. At the start of 2012, it was trading at 12 times earnings. So basically, our portfolio offers the same kind of value it did six years ago. On the other hand, a growth manager at the start of 2012 properly had a portfolio trading at about 16 or 18 times earnings and that portfolio now trades at 25 times earnings. In other words: the spread between these two investment styles is as high as it ever gets.

    Q. So what are other key positions in your portfolio?

    Stocks like Lennar, Amgen , Walgreens and Target look really interesting to us. And again: All that interest is very closely tied to the fact that these companies fit our criteria for common stock selection and we know that the general market psychology is extremely negative associated with investing in them.

Digest powered by RSS Digest