- Putin Initiates Trilateral Summit With India And China
Authored by Melkulangara Bhadrakumar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The trilateral summit meeting of Russia, India and China on the sidelines of the G20 at Buenos Aires on December 1 becomes a landmark event in Asian security and global politics. The so-called RIC format has taken a big leap forward with the leaderships of the three countries agreeing “to hold further such trilateral meetings on multilateral occasions” – to quote from an Indian External Affairs Ministry statement.
What is of particular interest is that Russian President Vladimir Putin took the initiative and both Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese Presdient Xi Jinping instinctively warmed up to the idea. The three leaders were intensely conscious of the backdrop in which the meeting took place.
They referred to the imperatives of cooperation and coordination between their countries in meeting the challenges to security and development. Promotion of the multilateral system, the democratization of the international order and world peace and stability was repeatedly stressed.
Significantly, Prime Minister Modi’s remarks were most emphatic and specific.
Modi noted that the meeting provided “an opportunity to freely and openly discuss some key matters that cause concern on the global level.” He added,
“Your Excellencies, without a doubt, the world today is going through a period of serious change, instability and growing geopolitical tensions. There is serious pressure being exerted on the global leadership. Multilateral relations and the world order based on common rules are being increasingly rejected by various unilateral, transnational and local groups, and different nations around the world. We can see this happening as sanctions are imposed outside the UN mandate and protectionist policies are gaining strength.”
“The Doha Development Agenda within the WTO has failed. Since the Paris Agreement, we have not seen the expected level of financial commitment on behalf of the developed countries in favour of the developing states. Therefore, when it comes to climate, justice is currently at risk. We are still very far from achieving the goals of sustainable development.”
Modi’s thinly veiled criticism of the US policies will be noted. All three leaders underscored that Russia, India and China have an important leadership role in the present international milieu and acknowledged the need to strengthen the RIC trilateral cooperation mechanism.
The RIC summit at Buenos Aires can be seen as the logical evolution of the shifts taking place in the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region in the recent period. Despite robust American efforts, the countries of the region refrain from identifying with the Trump administration’s strident moves against China. Simply put, they don’t want to get entangled with the erratic, unpredictable US policies.
On the other hand, the US’ capacity to dominate China militarily is progressively diminishing and the latter is expanding its influence into southeast Asia and western Pacific, which used to be exclusive American “sphere of influence”. The Trump administration’s America First project has put off Asian countries such as India, which seek a relationship with the US based on mutual respect and mutual benefit.
From the Indian perspective, notably, Modi has shown enthusiasm for Putin’s initiative on the trilateral summit of the RIC. Modi’s calculus needs explaining. Modi has not only revived the verve of the India-Russia relations, which suffered atrophy in the past decade, but sees the partnership as an anchor sheet of India’s strategic autonomy. In retrospect, Modi’s informal summit with Putin at Sochi has been a defining moment in finessing India’s regional and global strategies in the highly volatile international environment.
Modi’s forceful decision in October to press ahead with the S-400 missile deal with Russia in the face of immense US pressure underscores his grit to pursue independent foreign policies. Indeed, the RIC summit took place in the immediate context of the last-minute cancellation of President Trump’s meeting with Putin.
Secondly, Modi is building on the consensus he reached with President Xi at their Wuhan informal summit in April. India and China have intensified their bilateral contacts with a view to enhance their strategic communication. Modi held summit meetings with Xi thrice during the period since April alone. (Modi’s last “bilateral” with Trump was in November 2017.)
India’s calibrated distancing from the US’ containment policies against China were articulated with great clarity at Modi in a major speech at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore on June 1 where he sought an inclusive approach to the Asia-Pacific security.
The “Wuhan spirit” has produced positive results. The India-China border tensions have subsided and the focus is on confidence building, pending resolution of the border dispute. The Chinese ambassador to India recently said that the bilateral relations are witnessing one of their best periods in history.
Conceivably, Putin seized the moment to connect the dots by initiating the proposal on the RIC format at summit level. This was an idea that was originally mooted in 1998 by the great Russian strategic thinker and then Foreign Minister Evgeniy Primakov but it was ahead of its time. Two decades later, it is apparent that the RIC need not necessarily impose constraints on China and/or India’s independent and non-bloc policies.
Meanwhile, through these two decades, the so-called “Primakov Triangle” also engendered an eastern vector in the Russian foreign policy with Moscow prioritizing the strengthening of its relations with Asian countries. Importantly, the strongpoint of the Primakov doctrine – its focus on multilateral cooperation and multilateral institutions – proved to be far-sighted and has acquired relevance.
Given the above, Russia sees the RIC dialogue mechanism as an indispensable element of multilateral net diplomacy that can provide gravitas to the processes leading toward establishment of a fair world order.
How the RIC format at the summit level will evolve as a strategic triangle remains to be seen.
There is a degree of asymmetry within the RIC insofar as Russia enjoys close military and political relationships with both China and India, which is not the case between China and India. Again, India and China have a strong interest in economic partnership with the West. Nor is India or China seeking an “anti-western” alliance. But RIC format is flexible enough to allow room for discussion on the broad range of international problems.
Politically, China and India’s attitude vis-à-vis RIC remains pragmatic as they pursue and intensify cooperative relations with both the West and Russia. But in the post-Wuhan phase, India and China would probably visualize the potential to use the RIC discussion club to create traction for the Sino-Indian normalization. Russia can play a unique role here in fostering strategic trust.
To what extent Modi and Putin have candidly discussed this facet of the RIC process during their “intense” talks in Sochi in May remains untold but they are working on a matrix. Conceivably, Russia and China also would have a common interest in encouraging India’s strategic autonomy.
As time passes, the RIC summit format is destined to shape up as a major template of regional and international security and global development. A high degree of personal rapport already exists between and amongst Putin, Modi and Xi. One striking thing about the RIC summit is the strategic congruence in the Russian, Indian and Chinese statements.
- How America's Homeless Population Has Changed Over The Last Decade
Though the crisis of homelessness across the US has eased somewhat over the past decade, there are still some 550,000 homeless people in the US, equivalent to roughly one-fifth of one percent of the population.
Data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development cited by Business Insider shows that the US homeless population decreased by 14.4% between 2007 – when there were roughly 650,000 homeless in the US – and 2017.
The fluctuations in the homeless population weren’t even across the US. Michigan led the country by decreasing its homeless population by 68% between 2007 and 2017. New Jersey and Kentucky also saw decreases of more than 50% over that time period.
But while some states in saw meaningful reductions, there were 14 states (including Washington, DC) where homeless populations rose from 2007 to 2017. North Dakota, one of the most sparsely populated states in the US, saw a staggering increase of 71.2%. South Dakota and Wyoming also saw sizable increases of 60%.
But as property values in some of the largest and trendiest urban centers have risen since the crisis, the state level figures mask crises in the cities. In a recent piece, Bloomberg chronicled the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles. The city made record progress over the past year placing homeless people in housing. But the overall rate remains high nearly 60,000 people in a city of 4 million, that’s an increase of 47% since 2012. The number of people becoming homeless for the first time increased by 16% to nearly 10,000.
That being said, the face of homelessness is changing. There are more professional workers living in their cars in parking lots.
Research by Zillow recently found that every 5% increase in rents in LA resulted in another 2,000 people becoming homeless, one of the highest correlations in the US. And with Amazon moving into Queens, the backlash by the working class, who are the most vulnerable segment of the population has already begun.
- This Anti-Gun Bill Requires Access To Social Media & Internet Search History Of Prospective Buyers
Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,
In New York (the state, not just the city) there’s a rather Orwellian gun bill on the table that would require would-be firearm purchasers to turn over 3 years of their social media history and one year of their internet search history if they want to buy a gun.
“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who has proposed the legislation with New York State Senator Kevin Parker. (source)
Applicants to purchase a gun would be required by law to turn over their social media passwords to accounts like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram, and they’d have to allow police to see a year’s worth of their searches on a year’s worth of searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing. As well, anyone renewing their permit for a pistol would be subject to this invasive investigation.
Now, for those of you sitting there saying, “That’s fine, I don’t use social media and I use Duck Duck Go or StartPage” this is great – for now.
How long do you think it would be before other outlets like blogs where you comment or these different search engines are added to the list of things that are searched? Trust me, if it gets passed, this is a greasy slide straight to the bad place.
What will the police be looking for?
According to a write-up on the Democrat and Chronicle, a daily newspaper in Rochester, NY:
Police would be required to look for evidence the applicant searched for or used racist or discriminatory language, threatened the safety of another person, inquired about or alluded to an act of terrorism, and, finally, “any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer.” (source)
Think for a moment about how much the investigating officer’s bias would come into play here. In some ways of thinking, people who say “all lives matter” are considered the epitome of racism even when taken out of context.
And what about a couple of women talking about a breakup using heated language in a conversation about the ex who has become the enemy? Are they really going to act on it or are they just blowing off some steam?
Then I think about my search history regarding terrorism – I’m a blogger, for goodness sakes. My search history is a dark place. What if you’re researching what kind of gun you want to buy and you’re looking up things like “stopping power” or some other thing the anti-gun folks consider “scary” that is a completely legitimate question in reality?
And “any other issue deemed necessary” is just far, far too broad to provide any comfort whatsoever that the investigations would be fair and impartial. All of this is completely subjective. Anyone with a dark sense of humor, regardless of their sanity or upstanding citizen-ness, is going to be in for a hard time.
This social media and search history bill is unconstitutional on so many levels.
If you think it takes a long time now to get a gun or a carry permit (it can be weeks to months in some states), imagine how long it would take if officers are poring over everything on your laptop for the past 3 years. People in those areas would be waiting for far longer to make a purchase they’re allowed to make by the Second Amendment of the constitution.
Then there’s the dirty little pre-crime aspect of the whole thing. Eric Adams, one of the founders of this bright idea, said it was just basic police work. “If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation.”
But as the Foundation for Economic Education points out, in those cases, police are investigating a crime, not trying to predict one.
First, comparing the search of a prospective gun buyer’s internet history to routine police investigations is odd. When an assault, robbery, or shooting occurs, police are investigating a crime. That is not the case with someone trying to buy a firearm; the buyer is simply trying to make a lawful purchase. This bill is closer to what one might call pre-crime, an idea that has served as a plot device in dystopian literature for more than half a century. (The 2002 Tom Cruise movie Minority Report, a story that centers around a state that has figured out how to stop crimes before they happen, was based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.) (source)
This complete lack of privacy for gun owners is also concerning. Remember, it isn’t just new gun owners who would have to submit to this investigation – any gun owner who wants to keep his or her firearm in a place where permission must be renewed would be subject to an invasive search every time they were up for renewal. This, to me, slips into the realm of unreasonable searches, against which we are protected by the 4th amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (source)
Buying a gun is not a crime, which means there is no probable cause, right?
And who gets to decide whether something is hate speech? Ask any two people if a statement is hateful, and you’re likely to get two different answers. It all depends where you’re coming from. If some self-loathing, social justice warrior type is the one investigating versus some rigidly alt-right traditionalist, they’re going to see the social media commentary of a person very differently. You simply cannot make sweeping laws like this and leave the enforcement up to human beings who have their own biases without setting up a system of unfairness.
Fee states:
Additionally, there is the issue of defining hate speech, a notoriously nebulous term. (Europe has already shown where the road of state-regulated hate speech takes us.) What authority would determine what speech qualifies as “hateful”? To deny someone a fundamental right based on the state’s interpretation of “hate speech” would be an affront to constitutional principles. (source)
These people want to “protect” us right into dystopia.
But they don’t enforce the laws we already have.
They’re not even enforcing the gun control measures already in place.
The folks who want to make it more difficult for innocent people to exercise their second amendment rights should perhaps focus on the laws that are already in place instead of heaping even more of the onus on innocent people.
Several of last year’s mass shootings would not have occurred if those laws were enforced.
Nicolas Cruz, who shot up the high school in Florida. had serious mental health issues that were not properly reported and documented. Had they been, he would not have been able to purchase a gun – at least not legally.
And Devin Patrick Kelly, the guy who shot up a church in a small town in Texas, had a dishonorable discharge for violently assaulting his wife and child. Had the military reported this as they were obligated to do, he would not have passed the background check. He would not have been able to legally purchase those guns either.
We must ask ourselves this question seriously.
If we don’t enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, what good will more gun laws do?
More laws will mean that innocent people have a greater burden and that bad people will continue to flout the law with no fear of repercussions.
I don’t want to lose my right to protect myself just because government agencies aren’t taking seriously their responsibilities in preventing crimes.
Devin Kelley should not have been able to buy a gun according to the current laws. But the Air Force did not follow them.
Nikolas Cruz flat out told everyone he was going to be a school shooter. But the FBI didn’t do anything to stop him. He had years of history of mental illness and behavioral problems. But these issues were not reported to the database that would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.
Is the problem really with law-abiding, innocent gun owners? Or is it more reasonably with the authorities who aren’t abiding by the responsibilities charged to them and the people who are intent on killing? (source)
What good will more laws do? The proposed bill will cost extra money for anyone who wants to buy a gun, lengthen the waiting period, and rule out people based on the whims of the investigator.
Remember, these things never stop with just one state.
It’s easy to scoff and say, “Those crazy people in New York are getting what they voted for.” I know someone’s going to say it so there, I said it for you.
But that’s short-sighted, and dare I say, ignorant of the way the world works.
Look at all the states that have recently flipped from red to blue in the midterm elections. If you don’t think it could ever happen where you are, you’re not paying attention. Please keep in mind that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but am referring to some party generalizations here.
Democrats, who tend to lean more toward gun control measures than Republicans, took over the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. They also won 7 governor’s seats that were previously held by Republicans. A Democrat won a Senate seat in Montana, for crying out loud, long known to be a conservative stronghold.
There has been hard blowback against President Trump which will leave ripples in future elections for decades. In fact, I don’t recall in my adult life ever seeing a president so hated, disrespected and maligned. And the people doing the most maligning are the ones with the biggest microphones – namely, the mainstream media and Hollywood.
It’s not a stretch of the imagination to suggest we could soon see a dramatic shift in the United States that will open the door to all sorts of controlling “greater good” kinds of things.
Greater good. You know, like searching people’s computers before letting them own or keep their guns.
If this passes in New York, it won’t be long before it passes in California. Then in Massachusetts. Then it will spread, like a gun control virus. And it won’t be long until we see something introduced in the US Congress.
All of these new gun control measures are a scary, Orwellian slope and we’re slipping down it a little more every day.
- These Are The World's Most Powerful Passports
While “exceptional” America would likely be most people’s first guess at the world’s “most powerful” passport, according to the Passport Index, holders of a passport issued in the United Arab Emirates can visit 167 countries without needing to obtain a prior visa.
You will find more infographics at StatistaHaving just added four new countries to the list, this makes it the most powerful passport in the world.
As Statista’s Martin Armstrong points out in the chart above, a fair share of these countries do still require a visa on arrival, meaning that purely in terms of simply walking through passport control, Singapore passport holders have the easiest time in the most countries.
- NASA Scientist: Alien Life May Have Already Visited The Earth
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
A NASA scientist has said that aliens may have already visited the Earth. Silvano P. Colombano also claims that these alien lifeforms may have gone unnoticed by humans due to their extremely small size.
Colombano says that the extra-terrestrial beings would have looked quite a bit different than the carbon-based organisms currently roaming our planet, according to The Daily Mail. He also states that any visitors; past, present, or future, could easily be missed because of their tiny size. These super-intelligent interstellar traveling aliens could possess technology that humans cannot even comprehend at this point.
“Considering further that technological development in our civilization started only about 10,000 years ago and has seen the rise of scientific methodologies only in the past 500 years, we can surmise that we might have a real problem in predicting technological evolution even for the next thousand years, let alone 6 Million times that amount!”
The Daily Mail further reported that Dr. Colombano told California’s SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) backed Decoding Alien Intelligence Workshop back in March that scientists need to broaden their idea of what an extra-terrestrial would potentially look like.
“I simply want to point out the fact that the intelligence we might find and that might choose to find us (if it hasn’t already) might not be at all be produced by carbon-based organisms like us,” his report read.
He added that scientists must “re-visit even our most cherished assumptions,” which has implications for everything from an alien’s lifespan to its height. “The size of the ‘explorer’ might be that of an extremely tiny super-intelligent entity,” he added.
Colombano says that humans limited ideas of what another planet with life would like could be restricting our ability to locate intelligent life outside of earth. For example, a silicone-based lifeform would likely not look anything like the pictures of the carbon-based entities in our heads of a “typical” alien being.
He also explained that not every single UFO can be “explained” but not every UFO can be “denied” either.
- Austin Residents Saw America's Largest Credit Card Balance Jump In Past Year
Consumer credit recently hit a new all-time high, mainly on the back of newfound love with credit cards.
In the last 12 months, no major US metropolitan area experienced a surge in credit card balances than Austin, Texas.
It could be a sign that Austinites (mostly millennials) might be struggling with increasing household expenses, stuck in the gig economy: lower wages, horrible benefits, no job security, and heighten debt loads.
The study, published by credit card platform CompareCards, found credit card balances soared 12% from $6,165 to $6,924 during Sept. 2017 to Sept 2018.
CompareCards examined data from My LendingTree to compare the average credit card balance in the nation’s 50 largest cities. Austin was one of three cities that saw double-digit increases in credit card balances during the one year. The others were St. Louis and San Jose, California.
This type of credit growth was widely expected, considering our October report on consumer credit hit record highs. The Federal Reserve data showed that Americans’ revolving credit (credit cards) balances expanded 3.7% nationwide during the same period, hitting to a record $1.041 trillion.
CompareCards provides an analysis of why Austinites are resorting to credit cards at a much higher rate than the rest of the country:
“Austin, Texas — the city with the fastest-growing card debt — has seen years of rapid population and job growth, transforming the Texas capital into perhaps the most expensive big city in Texas. For example, reports showed that rents in Austin hit an all-time high of nearly $1,300 per month in June. Those high cost-of-living expenses, paired with the student loan debt issues that come with being the home of the University of Texas, one of the nation’s biggest colleges, mean that many Austinites may be leaning a little more heavily on credit cards these days.”
Cities With The Biggest Percentage Growth In Credit Card Balances, Sept. 2017 to Sept. 2018
Top 20 Cities Ranked By Average Credit Card Balance Change %, Sept. 2017 to Sept. 2018
Matt Schulz, the chief industry analyst at CompareCards, told CultureMap that Austin’s growth of credit card debt could be an indicator of consumer confidence.
“If you feel great about your job and your economic future, you may not sweat a little bit of a credit card balance because you firmly believe that you’ll be able to pay it off in relatively short order,” he said.
“Some people may even use credit card debt as a short-term investment, whether you’re remodeling a house or trying to start a business. That’s the kind of thing that could certainly be happening in a booming city like Austin, because people feel emboldened by a good economy.”
Although, when consumers acquire high debt/ savings ratio — even when the reason is well-intended, their savings levels plunge to extreme lows that could be problematic in the next economic downturn, according to Schulz.
“That’s scary, because that means that when the next downturn comes, people might find themselves in a worse financial situation than they needed to be in, simply because they were overconfident,” he warned.
As economic storm clouds gather ahead of 2019, Austinites seem to be in a tough position of high debt loads, and limited savings, a perfect concoction for deleveraging as credit markets continue to tighten.
- Bloodbath – From Triumphant Truce To Deal Dysphoria In 36 Hours
Trump and Xi were the powdered sugar awesomeness on the top of the Powell vanilla latte yumminess from last week… and then this happens…
China stocks held up overnight…
European Stocks continued to give back Sunday night gains…
US Equity indices rapidly erased not just Sunday night gains but Friday afternoon’s pre-emptive push and Wednesday’s Powell Put levels…
“The Dow vigilantes have managed to get both a Powell put and a Trump put for the market,” said Ed Yardeni, lead strategist at his namesake research firm. “Jerome Powell turned into Santa Claus last Wednesday, markets certainly reacted joyously to his hints that Fed tightening would occur at an even more gradual pace. So if Jerome Powell is Santa Claus, then the two elves are President Trump and President Xi.”
But the Grinch just took that all away… From Friday’s close…
On the day, Trannies worst day since Brexit, but it was all a disaster…
Dow down 800 points!
The S&P stalled at 2800 once again and completed a triple top of lower highs…
All major indices crashed back below their key technical support levels…
TICK shows the massive sell programs hitting as stocks broke key technical levels. Momentum stocks collapsed…
Trannies and Small Caps are back in the red for 2018.
Bank stocks have been battered, tracking the curve lower…
For some context:
-
Global Systemically Important Banks are down 30% from 52-week highs.
-
US Financials down 14.5% from 52-week highs.
-
Goldman Sachs is down 33% from 52-week highs.
And regional banks crashed most since Brexit…
But while banks were busted, FANG stocks got monkey-hammered… back into bear market (down 22% from 52-week highs)
(FB -36%, AMZN -17%, NFLX 34%, GOOGL -17%. AAPL -24%)
Stocks plunged back to bond’s reality…
Treasury yields tumbled today with the long-end dramatically outperforming and collapsing the yield curve…
The 10Y TSY yield plunged below 2.90% intraday…
But if Cyclicals (rel to Defensives) are right, 30Y Yields have a long way to go…
And Long Bond futures broke back above their 200DMA…
The yield curve collapsed too with 2s5s, 3s5s inverted and 2s10s into single-digits…
All of which brought out a herd of asset-gatherers and commission-takers to explain how this is a dip, not an inversion… or that it’s different this time because of central bank intervention… not it is not!!
And the Eurodollar curves are now pricing in an extremely dovish trajectory…
Massively decoupled from The Fed’s guess…
Credit markets smashed wider today and equity protection soared (VIX>21) playing catch up…
The dollar repeated yesterday’s fund by diving overnight and ramping from the European open… (note it remains lower from Powell’s Put last Wednesday)…
The offshore yuan exploded higher (near 3-month highs)…but began to fade this afternoon after tagging september highs
But the Turkish Lira was hammered today…
Cryptos were also slammed today led by
PMs managed modest gains on the day as Crude and Copper rolled over…
Gold held on to gains as oil slipped ahead of tonight’s inventory data…
Finally, the biggest picture of all signals that volatility is coming… just like winter…
And with markets closed tomorrow, we suspect this is the scene on many trading floors…
Bulls and bears RN
— Michael Batnick (@michaelbatnick) December 4, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And this did not age well…
-
- China Dismisses Confusion Claims, Says Will Quickly Implement Trade Agreement With US
Following a story from The Washington Post quoting a former U.S. government official who was said to have been in contact with Chinese officials, claiming Beijing are “puzzled and irritated” by the Trump administration’s behavior, and widespread confusion across media claiming the ‘truce’ as a nothingburger; China’s Ministry of Finance has denied any confusion or negativity exists.
The WaPo report went to claim the unknown former US official said:
“You don’t do this with the Chinese. You don’t triumphantly proclaim all their concessions in public. It’s just madness,” the former official, who asked for anonymity to describe confidential discussions, told the Post.
While President Trump’s dinner with Chinese leader Xi yielded a cease-fire in the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies, judging by the market’s moves today, the details are proving less than satisfying to those hungering for a lasting truce.
But, tonight, China says trade meeting with U.S. is “very successful” and is “confident” to implement the results agreed upon at the talks, according to a statement on Ministry of Commerce website.
A reporter asked: We know that the Chinese economic and trade team has returned to Beijing. What is your comment on this meeting?
A: The meeting was very successful and we have confidence in the implementation.
Q: How is China prepared to promote the next economic and trade consultation?
A: The economic and trade teams of the two sides will actively promote the consultation work within 90 days in accordance with a clear timetable and road map.
Q: What are the priorities for China?
A: China will start from implementing specific issues that have reached consensus, and the sooner the better.
Of course, as Torsten Slok, chief international economist at Deutsche Bank AG said:
“The market wants to see more details before it can make up its mind,
It remains unclear for the market whether the trade war will escalate or deescalate from here.”
And, as Axios reports, Mike Pillsbury is worried Trump’s negotiations with China are unraveling. The hawkish former Pentagon official — who Trump has called “probably the leading authority on China” and who reportedly huddled with Trump in the Oval the day before Trump left for his G20 meeting with President Xi — said “there’s a risk the deal will come undone.”
Pillsbury said he’s “getting warnings from knowledgeable Chinese about the American claims of concessions” that the Chinese have said they never made. These contradictions include U.S. claims that the Chinese agreed to “immediately” address their most egregious industrial behavior, to “immediately” restart purchases of U.S. agriculture, and to slash tariffs on American cars.
“I have advised the president’s team that for the past 40 years the American side avoids disclosing Chinese concessions before the final agreed written statement is released,” Pillsbury told me in a phone interview today.
Sounds an awful lot like WaPo’s anonymous source? And is the opposite of the official word from China.
Pillsbury’s comments were rapidly followed by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro who told Fox News that it would be premature for people to “lose faith” in the trade discussions the U.S. is holding with China.
“The Chinese haven’t even gotten back to China yet,” Navarro tells Fox in an interview;
“Let’s give it some time”
Navarro says he is bullish on the economy and “I’m bullish on this deal”
Navarro also noted he is optimistic about progress being made over market access and structural changes with China during the 90 day-period in which the talks will be held.
However, Navarro did admit that communication by the administration over the outcome of the talks perhaps could have been better, pointing out, echoing Mnuchin’s earlier comments, that the market may be “trying to parse whether the Fed’s going to raise interest rates again,” which Navarro says would be a mistake.
Nevertheless, President Trump would have the last word once again,
insisting, as he did earlier that “We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all…”
We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States. Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal – either now or into the future….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 5, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
…..China does not want Tariffs!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 5, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Which some may interpret as Trump giving himself an ‘out’ if things don’t work out – although “Tariff Man” has been consistently hawkish.
- What America Has Done To Its Young People Is Appalling
Authored by James Ostrowski via LewRockwell.com,
Critics are perhaps too quick to judge America’s young people, citing declining SAT scores, obesity, drug overdoses, addiction to smart phones, bizarre alterations of personal appearance and high rates of (alleged) mental illness. It’s just too easy to be annoyed at how some of the cashiers at the local grocery store seem unable to carry on a conversation or have chosen to mutilate their faces with pieces of metal. We are perhaps too quick to condemn the crazed behavior of young protesters in recent years without fully considering what our government, society and culture have done to these poor souls.
Let’s begin at the beginning. Forty percent of Americans are now born out of wedlock. Single parent families are associated with a long list of social maladies:
“Children who grow up with only one of their biological parents (nearly always the mother) are disadvantaged across a broad array of outcomes. . . . they are twice as likely to drop out of high school, 2.5 times as likely to become teen mothers, and 1.4 times as likely to be idle — out of school and out of work — as children who grow up with both parents. Children in one-parent families also have lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, and poorer attendance records. As adults, they have higher rates of divorce. These patterns persist even after adjusting for differences in race, parents’ education, number of siblings, and residential location.” Sara McLanahan, “The Consequences of Single Motherhood,” American Prospect(Summer 1994).
In addition, a large number of marriages will fail. That means that close to sixty percent of children will not grow up in the classic nuclear family of the 1950’s. How much of this change is due to government policies is hard to say, however, as government grows, the traditional family shrinks. When government subsidies to single parent families increase, so do the number of such families. As Jack Kemp used to say, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. Yes, culture also plays a role but don’t forget that government can change the culture as well. Women tend to come out ahead in Family Court—they get the house, the kids and much of the man’s spare change thanks to unrealistic support formulas. This provides an incentive in marginal cases for women to seek a divorce. Increases in divorces made them more socially acceptable over time.
Even with intact families, the idyllic norm of the 1950’s, where the mother typically stayed home to take care of the kids until they reached school age and perhaps even long afterwards, has been destroyed. These days, in the typical American family, both parents work fulltime which means that a very large percentage of children are consigned to daycare. Daycare was virtually unknown in my world growing up in the 1960’s. On the working class South Buffalo street where I grew up, I don’t recall any mother with young children working full-time. The overwhelming majority were housewives while a few would get part-time jobs after the kids started school. I was not aware of any daycare centers in the neighborhood and certainly do not recall anyonewho ever attended one.
The statistics bear this out. Daycare was once unusual for the middle class, but now over two-thirds of children lack a full-time stay-at-home parent. (Source: Center for American Progress) Like single parent families, daycare carries with it a long list of undesirable likely consequences. These include “more mental and behavioral problems, more mind-altering drugs, more STDs, more obese, unhappy and institutionalized children of all ages.” Mary Eberstadt, “Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes” (2004) (A fabulous but widely-ignored book).
Thus, in the critical first five years of life, the vast majority of Americans are deprived of the obvious benefits of growing up in an intact family with the mother at home in the pre-school years. We baby boomers took this for granted. That world is gone with the wind. Why? Two main reasons: feminism and progressive big government.
Feminism encouraged women to get out of the home and out from under the alleged control of husbands who allegedly controlled the family finances. Traditional mothers were derided as “baby factories” as if working in an actual factory making widgets was somehow more edifying than nurturing human beings at home.
Second, the trend toward ever larger and more intrusive big government that started in the Progressive Era around 1916, hadn’t yet weighed down the economy to the extent that two incomes were needed to support a family in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Yet, government grows steadily under progressive ideology, and after the twin shocks of the Great Society and the Vietnam War, by the 1970’s stagflation kicked in and it became increasingly difficult to support a family with one income. Married women, whether they liked it or not or were under the sway of feminist ideology, were pushed into the labor market if only to have most of their wages seized to pay the dozens of taxes the family must pay. The take-home pay of many women is barely more than the family’s total tax bill. Ironically, “women’s lib” ended up converting women from baby factories into full-time tax livestock.
It gets worse. After five years of being raised by strangers and deprived of maternal care, 90% of American youth are compelled to attend government schools for 12-13 years. As I explained in my book, Government Schools are Bad for Your Kids,government schools are rife with crime, drugs, promiscuity, mediocre education and political propaganda.
Next comes college for about 70% of Americans. While many young people thrive in college, many others graduate with huge debt and poor job prospects and a hard left ideology poorly suited for success in life. Leftism teaches resentment of others, inculcates a victim mentality and teaches some students to hate their skin color while teaching others to blame the skin color of others for the difficulties they will face in life. Leftism does not inculcate the positive thinking, initiative, work ethic and perseverance in the face of adversity which are the hallmarks of successful people.
Finally, we send this disadvantaged group of young Americans into a very hostile job market. Here, we saddle them with their per capita share of government debt as the guarantors of the fraudulent campaign promises of dead progressive politicians such as FDR and LBJ. A good accountant could figure how this debt translates into increased per capita taxes by dividing the number of taxpayers by the annual debt service. It is perhaps $2000 per person. Next comes student loan debt, a contrivance once again of dead progressive politicians to benefit overpaid progressive and left professors and administrators. This can easily be yet another $2000 per year.
Young people are shunted into the job market because the progressive state has made starting a business extremely difficult with a bundle of taxes and regulations. The mere process of getting a job, which used to take a few days in the free market, now takes many months. Many jobs require government permission. Employers need to vet employees more carefully to avoid a plethora of costly discrimination lawsuits. Young workers’ productivity is largely eaten up by the direct and indirect effects of a myriad and taxes and regulations, often leaving workers with just enough to pay the bills but not move forward, have families or save for the future. As a result, a record number of young people are forced to move back in with their parents.
The startling message I want to convey is that modern America treats its young people abominably from birth through young adulthood. This is largely because of the direct and indirect effects of numerous destructive progressive policies. This explains the numerous problems many young people are having. They have a right to be angry but need to focus on the true cause of the overwhelming majority of these problems: progressive big government. To the young people of America, I say: take the red pill; then, don’t get mad; get even. Make life better for your own children than what progressive America foisted upon you.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...