di James Rickards
L'inflazione a doppia cifra non è uno sviluppo lineare. Quello che voglio dire è che l'inflazione non va semplicemente dal due per cento, al tre per cento, al quattro, al cinque, al sei. È davvero difficile passare da due a tre, il che è in definitiva ciò che vuole la FED.
Si sta addirittura dimostrando estremamente difficile arrivare fino a due. La spesa per i consumi personali (PCE) è il deflatore di prezzo, parametro monitorato dalla FED. Attualmente è a circa 1.6-1.7%, ma è bloccata lì. Non va da nessuna parte. La FED continua a provare tutto il possibile per farla arrivare a due con la speranza di arrivare a tre. Il problema si pone una volta arrivati a tre, poiché la tappa successiva non è a quattro, ma otto, e poi dieci. In altre parole, c'è un grande salto.
La ragione è che non è puramente una funzione della politica monetaria, è una funzione parziale della politica monetaria.
È anche una funzione della psicologia comportamentale. È molto difficile convincere la gente a cambiare le proprie aspettative, ma se accade, è difficile convincerli a cambiarle di nuovo.
L'inflazione può davvero andare fuori controllo molto rapidamente. Quindi tra cinque anni a questa parte, potremmo avere un tasso d'inflazione a doppia cifra? È possibile, sebbene non lo stia prevedendo. Se ci sarà, accadrà molto rapidamente. Vedremmo una lotta nel passaggio dal due al tre per cento, e poi un salto fino a sei, e poi a nove o dieci. Questo è un altro motivo per cui è consigliabile avere un'allocazione in oro. Perché se e quando questi sviluppi si metteranno in moto, l'oro sarà inaccessibile.
A questo punto, mi viene spesso chiesto: "Come puoi dire che il prezzo dell'oro salirà a $10,000 senza conoscere gli sviluppi nell'economia mondiale, né le azioni che saranno intraprese dalla Federal Reserve?"
Non è un numero a casaccio. Non lo butto là solo per ottenere attenzioni, eccetera. È il prezzo implicito dell'oro. Ognuno dice che non si può avere un gold standard, perché non c'è abbastanza oro. C'è sempre abbastanza oro, è il prezzo che cambia.
Questo fu l'errore commesso da Churchill nel 1925. Il mondo non ripeterà lo stesso errore. Non sto dicendo che torneremo ad avere un gold standard. Sto dicendo che se si avrà qualcosa come un gold standard, sarà fondamentale avere un prezzo giusto. A questo proposito, Paul Volcker disse la stessa cosa.
La domanda analitica è: si può avere un gold standard se si ha il prezzo giusto, ma allora qual è questo prezzo? Qual è il prezzo che l'oro deve raggiungere affinché possa sostenere il commercio globale e i bilanci delle banche, senza ridurre l'offerta di moneta? La risposta è $10,000.
Io uso M1, ma è possibile scegliere un'altra misura (ci sono diverse misure riguardanti l'offerta di moneta). Io uso un 40% ci copertura. Un sacco di persone non sono d'accordo. Gli Austriaci dicono che dovrebbe essere al 100%.
Storicamente è stata al 20%. Se si prende M1 globale delle principali economie, lo si moltiplica col 40% e poi si divide per la quantità di oro ufficiale nel mondo, il risultato è circa $10,000 l'oncia.
Se si usa una copertura del 100%, utilizzando sempre M1, si otterrà come risultato $25,000 l'oncia. Se si utilizza M2 con una copertura al 100%, si otterrà come risultato $50,000 l'oncia. Se si utilizza una copertura del 20% con M1, si otterrà come risultato $5,000 l'oncia. Tutti questi numeri saranno diversi in base agli input. Ma, giusto per essere chiari, io sto usando M1 dell'economia più importante del mondo, il 40% di copertura, e l'offerta d'oro ufficiale di circa 35,000 tonnellate.
Modificate l'input e cambierete l'output. Non sono numeri inventati.
Ecco perché parlo di $10,000 l'oncia. Val anche la pena notare che non c'è bisogno di avere un gold standard, ma se ci sarà, questo sarà il prezzo.
Quindi la domanda successiva sarà: torneremo a vedere un gold standard? Questa è una funzione della perdita di fiducia nelle valute delle banche centrali. È già successo tre volte: nel 1914, nel 1939 e nel 1971. Non dimentichiamo che nel 1977 gli Stati Uniti emisero titoli di stato denominati in franchi svizzeri, perché nessun altro paese voleva i dollari. Il Tesoro degli Stati Uniti poi prese in prestito in franchi svizzeri, perché la gente non voleva i dollari, almeno non ad un tasso d'interesse che il Tesoro non era disposto a pagare.
Le cose andavano molto male allora, e questo tipo di crisi avviene ogni 30 o 40 anni. Anche in questo caso, possiamo rivolgere lo sguardo alla storia e vedere quello che è successo nel 1998. Wall Street salvò un hedge fund per salvare il mondo. Cos'è successo nel 2008? Le banche centrali hanno salvato Wall Street per salvare il mondo. Cosa succederà nel 2018?
Ogni piano di salvataggio diventerà più grande di quello precedente. Sì, vengono attuati salvataggi, basati sulla strategia del "troncamento". Sì, gli stati non scompariranno senza combattere. I policymaker troncheranno una crisi finanziaria globale, ma poi alzeranno l'asticella. Come? Le "armi" della banca centrale.
Il governatore della Banca d'Inghilterra, Mark Carney, sta parlando di tagliare i tassi d'interesse nel Regno Unito. Ha trascorso due anni a prendere in giro i mercati su un rialzo dei tassi, e ora ha intenzione di tagliarli. Ciò a dimostrazione che c'è qualcosa di grosso in ballo. C'è qualcosa di più grande rispetto alle banche centrali che è necessario analizzare.
Se la prossima crisi sarà più grande di quella precedente, e secondo me lo sarà, e le banche centrali saranno a corto di proiettili da sparare, da dove proverranno i soldi? Come pensate che inietteranno liquidità nel mondo? Risposta: il FMI stamperà una massiccia quantità di DSP. Sarà inflazionistico? Ovviamente sì.
Se inondate i mercati di DSP, solo due cose potranno accadere. O funzionerà e sarà altamente inflazionistico, cosa che porterà l'oro a $10,000 l'oncia; o non funzionerà, nel qual caso si tornerà ad un gold standard e l'oro andrà lo stesso a $10,000 l'oncia.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: http://francescosimoncelli.blogspot.it/
This week three media goliaths — Facebook, Google, and Twitter, who collectively act as information gatekeepers for the Internet — announced they would begin implementing censorship practices against news sites they deem misleading.
Web sites that publish “fake,” misleading, or even satirical news will now be subject to a sliding scale of infractions that will target ad revenue and social media algorithms. Without ad revenue from monetization platforms like Google Adsense, many of these sites would not be able to continue publishing, and without Facebook’s distribution platform, even sites with good organic reach could find their traffic severely crippled.
“Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose of the web property,” Google stated, following the lead of Mark Zuckerberg.
On a proprietary note, do these companies have the right to restrict users of their services who they deem to be in breach of contract? Yes. Is it understandable to want to exert some control over hacks who manipulate search engine and social media algorithms at the expense of a misinformed public? Yes. Does this exonerate the intellectual and cultural crime of using the specter of online ‘yellow journalism’ to deliver a crippling blow to the revenue streams of independent media…?
The move comes after Facebook and Google found themselves taking a lot of heat after the election. (Liberal) detractors went so far as to blame Facebook and Google for Trump’s win, claiming the constant online echo chamber of sensationalist news, unsubstantiated claims, and apocryphal headlines paved the way for Clinton’s electoral collapse.
The new restrictions will target a wide variety of web sites: sites whose editorial content is deemed (by, Google, Facebook and Twitter’s board of directors, presumably?) false or misleading; sites that intend to invoke outrage with clickbait-y titles; and even sites that are purposely fake (such as the Onion’s sister site, Clickhole) for satirical purposes.
The websites on the new blacklist include Zero Hedge, The Free Thought Project, Collective Evolution, Disclose.TV, and dozens of others. The selections run the gamut from partisan propagandistic sites to alternative philosophy and healing resources. Unsurprisingly, alt-right darlings Infowars and Breitbart, both of which will soon wield vast power in the Trump administration, are targeted. In the case of Infowars, one might surmise the conservative Trumpland publication’s insistence that Hillary Clinton’s inner-circle practices satanic rituals had something to do with their inclusion on the list.
Some of the other sites on the list are surprising. Collective Evolution, as an example, may be considered by some to have New Age influences, but many of their articles practice sound journalistic ethics.
Why such a draconian response? Some analysts believe “fake news” had a role in flipping the results of the election away from what the mainstream media had predicted — away from their carefully groomed candidate. Their conscription of Google, Facebook, and Twitter (which may institute something called ‘mute’ filters) in order to exact revenge may cripple, if not destroy, an alternative media infrastructure that has grown into a formidable challenge to the traditional media establishment.
Because of how blatantly fascistic this move is, I struggle to respond to those who say, ‘Well, some of these sites are bad.’
Yes, some of them are, but that’s not the point. The point is that this is a Pandora’s Box scenario. Once we give the Corporate State the ability to curate online content via punitive measures, we’ve bestowed upon them the power to act as a gatekeeper for a stunning amount of public knowledge. This is crony capitalism integrated into the very ethos of the fourth estate, using groupthink and the free market to drown out sites that don’t make the cut of acceptable. They will now be able to go through all news stories and delegate carte blanche which ones are “false” and must, therefore, be algorithmically and punitively castrated. They already used Russia as an excuse to not acknowledge Wikileaks impeccably researched leaks. What won’t they stoop to in order to conceal their future transgressions?
It will actually likely end up resembling aspects of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). In that (hopefully dead) trade agreement, corporate tribunals would have been given the power to overrule national laws that hurt their profits. Similarly, with the “fake news” control mechanism, the political-media-industrial complex will be able to determine which stories are damaging to their geopolitical and domestic narratives and then use Google, Facebook, and Twitter to suffocate any news articles that challenge these narratives. Half-truths and controversial op-eds will be cited as reasons for bans. Hacked information from Wikileaks cables could be cited as specious and without corroboration, or, more likely, Russian espionage (well, if Clinton were still around, at least).
There is another parallel, and it’s nothing less than 9/11 itself. After the terrorist attacks that tragically took the lives of over three thousand Americans, the government used the nation’s fear and collective trauma to ram through the Patriot Act, which created a matrix of laws that has been stripping us of our civil liberties for over 15 years. It appears the political establishment wants to use Clinton’s loss in a similar way: to bottle public anger over the election into the deliverable censorship of grassroots media. I’ve been claiming for months that the government’s next war would be on hackers and publishers of hacked material. It appears I may have been wrong (oops, I guess Google and Facebook ought to break our site over their knee). The next war could be on independent media, who the establishment rightfully believes is one of their biggest enemies at the moment. Who else can expose to everyday Americans that the government and their corporate goon-slaves are full of the worst kind of shit?
Let’s be clear: there are certain sites on the list that publish bad journalism, sloppy journalism, or straight up lies. And sometimes it’s easy to find them. After all, Professor Melissa Zimdars (who contributed to the list) made the following astute point:
“Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.”
But whether or not some sites practice questionable editorial standards is completely beside the point. By attacking the finances of alternative media sites who publish controversial but well-researched journalism, the government is blacklisting an entire movement. The precedent Google and Facebook will establish with this move will have incalculable ramifications on the future of alternative media and the Corporate State’s ability to censor any story they deem dangerous. This is nothing short of a two-step with fascism.
If they don’t want “misleading” news, they better kill the networks.
Let’s unpack this for a moment and pretend that truthful journalism is really what Google and Facebook are after. If that were the case, they would need to cut off the revenue streams of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, Fox, CBS, and all of the other mainstream news channels — you know, the same ones that collectively manipulated us into accepting the Iraq War and the subsequent regime change policies that have killed millions in the Middle East. And, see, that’s precisely the reason the mainstream media would never be held to these kinds of standards: they are a division of the State Department; they help manufacture consensus. You see, their “fake” news is important; the government’s fake news is real news.
Beyond just propagating blatantly misleading and fraudulent news (I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that the link I just used, which catalogs instances of mainstream media perpetuating false news, is on the new official list of “fake” news), the networks have long been guilty of commission by omission — curating the news cycles so that stories on critical issues like Standing Rock, TPP and others get a fraction of the air time of, say, an airplane crash or Trump’s latest gaffe.
This is Trojan horse for the government
In the Deep State (which you won’t hear even a mention of on network news), the government operates as a series of revolving doors between private defense contractors, media conglomerates, the surveillance apparatus, and giant financial institutions. After the revelations of Snowden (source is another from the list of fake news – be wary!), it became clear that the government was spying on and data mining American citizens with impunity in ways far worse than even 1984 had imagined.
Caught with their pants down, the government stopped, right? No. In fact, they doubled down, except they did something smart: they farmed it out to corporations and created a new synergistic surveillance state. Without Silicon Valley, many of the NSA’s transgressions could have never come to pass. Similarly, the government will now outsource its censorship game to corporations. Ironically, it will be Google and Facebook, two companies that represent the 21st century Information Age, who will be holding the cuffs.
This is another example corporations pitch hitting for the government, and it sets a horrifying precedent.
What can you do?
1. Don’t listen to them. Trust independent media (while being extremely discerning) over corporate media.
2. Help in the effort to create alternative and underground internet and social media infrastructure. A huge part of this is holding independent media accountable to accurate reporting, confirming sources, and obtaining original documents. Alt. media doesn’t have the same financial resources available to them, but with the ubiquity of the Internet, there’s no excuse for sloppy reporting.
3. Support alternative media with donations and content sharing.
4. Boycott mainstream media.
5. Tell Google and Facebook you disagree with censorship.
6. Encrypt (always encrypt). This isn’t necessary for some journalists — but if you are breaking a big story you should be using anonymous web tools like Tor, a VPN, as well as using encryption to transmit and unlock messages. Take a look at the Twitter account of information activist Cory Doctorow. He lists a long string of numbers and letters. That is his public key, otherwise known as asymmetric cryptography, which allows him to communicate information privately and anonymously. In the future, it will be unthinkable for journalists to not protect themselves, their data, and their sources in this way.
My wife’s family had a schism going, back when I first met her, thirty-six years ago. One side had voted for and ardently supported President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The other side wanted nothing to do with the man. But the real family split came when Roosevelt expired during his fourth term in office. One grandfather came into the other grandfather’s shop and proclaimed, “Boy, am I ever glad that sonofabitch is finally dead!”
Neither side ever spoke to the other side again.
My science fiction writer’s instinct is telling me that this month’s historic Presidential election is going to be like that. Democrats are beating up and killing Republicans in the street. Wives are divorcing their husbands. Employers are dismissing their employees. People are boycotting other people, all because one of them voted for and supported the “wrong” candidate. Democrats are feeling that they’ve been demolished. (Don’t worry, they’ll be back.) Republicans are saying that this is just what 1964 felt like when Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater in a media-manufactured landslide. Despite everything, survived. Partisans will be keeping track of who voted for whom and vowing never to go to their movies again, forevermore.
Believe me, I understand, But life goes on, whatever horse you picked. I’m not saying it doesn’t matter who won or lost; it does, or I wouldn’t have bothered to vote. But for me, I just finished another novel, today. (I think this makes thirty-four, altogether.) In the long run, everything I said in it about life and love and truth and beauty will last much longer and remain far more important than whatever politician is in power. So will that afghan you’re knitting for your granddaughter. So are those pictures you’re taking, or that painting you’re painting. In the long run, they’re all vastly more important than any election or any President. In fact, if the Trump Administration can just learn to leave everybody in America the hell alone, it will go down in history with the greatest of them.
There’s a true measurement of the genuine significance of government for you: in its absence, real civilization flourishes. In its malignant presence, the hopes and dreams of ordinary individuals wither and fade and die. How many civilizations have risen and fallen without learning that simple lesson? How many Dreamkillers have occupied the Oval Office?
My own plan, for the next four to eight years, provided I can keep myself glued and taped together that long, is to breathe—and to do more writing. The novel I just finished today, Only The Young Die Good is about two almost ordinary people who have found love in one another, struggling to be decent in extraordinary circumstances, in a largely indecent world. The book I’ll return to the day after tomorrow, Ares is about people just like that risking everything to make a home in a new world. There are Presidents in the second book, and politics, but they don’t amount to much, compared to the reality the people in it have to face, and the character with which they face it.
I probably don’t have to tell anybody reading this essay that stamping your wittow foot, or holding your bweath until you tuwn bwue isn’t going to change a damn thing. Against all odds, Donald J. Trump got himself elected, and that may turn out to be a bad thing or a good thing. You pays your taxes and you takes your chances. I was born during the Harry Truman Administration and there have been so many horrifying regimes since then, I’m deeply surprised that the country still exists in any form.
If you backed the Democrat (you naughty person), I promise you, barring a massive asteroid strike, the country will still be here when the Republicans are through with it—or we are through with them. I also promise you that in the four to eight years to come, you will laugh, you will cry, you will do you work, and you will fall in love. No, I’m not saying “Don’t worry, be happy”. I’m simply saying live your life.
I still have a great many books to write. I wake up each and every morning, anxious to get to my desk. In that sense, I’m probably the luckiest guy who ever lived. If you don’t feel the same way, go find something that makes you wake up every morning anxious to get to work. It’s the only way for a civilized being to live.
Come January, President-elect Donald Trump — the self-described “king of builders” — will be faced with a unique re-modeling opportunity that’s nearly exclusive to him — completely reshaping the Federal Reserve.
There are currently two vacant positions on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the main governing body of the central bank. Chairwoman Janet Yellen and Vice-Chair Stanley Fischer’s terms will expire by 2018. This means that should Yellen and Fischer follow custom and concede their board seats, Trump will have the opportunity to replace four of the Fed’s seven leading officials with conservative figures during his presidency.
And that’s a big deal.
Board members serve 14-year terms, and there have been very few times in history where more than two board vacancies have come in a single presidential term. In truth, Trump has a nearly unprecedented opportunity to shift the direction of monetary policy towards a more conservative direction.
Although Trump has occasionally appeared to embrace the status quo with respect to monetary policy, he has also been rather candid in his views of the current Fed.
According to CNBC, Trump has little fondness for low-interest rate queen Janet Yellen, and he accused her of depressing interest rates for political purposes multiple times on the campaign trail. At the same time, Trump has rightly questioned the Fed’s current approach to manipulating the stock market.
Trump’s Problem with low-interest rates
Donald Trump knows from experience that the Federal Reserve’s low-interest rate policies have wreaked havoc on the economy.
Everyone that had the displeasure of living through the Great Recession of 2008 understands that the Fed’s artificially low-interest rates misled and lured individuals and industries into allocating too much capital into the housing market. In fact, it was these low-interest rates that facilitated a false sense of demand for real estate, a consequence of the Fed’s easy-money policy that allowed home prices to greatly inflate. As a result, the entire system crashed, leaving to over four million foreclosed homes and the killing of over nine million US jobs.
Donald Trump felt the whiplash of the Federal Reserve’s lack of foresight directly on the business end. The central bank’s misleading market signs tricked him, like millions of others, into building too much, causing him to miss a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008. And everyone knows that when it comes to bad actors in the business community, The Donald forgives, but he never forgets.
As a result, bashing the “false economy” that the Federal Reserve has created became a regular talking point for Trump on the campaign trail. Over the course of the past year, Trump has castigated everything from the “big, fat, ugly [economic] bubble[s]” that the Fed has created, to the political influence that runs rampant throughout the central bank (in fact, he accused the “independent” Fed as being more political than Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate).
Although he still occasionally refers to himself as a “low-interest rate person,” it would be hard to imagine that a guy as smart as Trump would allow the Fed to continue taking advantage of investors by repeating the same mistakes of the past several decades.
Trump goes g(b)old
Donald Trump is fully aware that the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies have eroded the purchasing power of the dollar, and he believes that tying our currency back to gold might be the best way to stop the Fed’s unchecked printing press.
“Sadly, we all know what’s happening to the dollar,” Trump told The Street in 2011. “The dollar is going down, and it’s not a pretty picture, and it’s not being sustained by proper policy and proper thinking.”
Last year, Trump finally told The Scene how he plans to salvage our currency from complete depreciation: “Bringing back the gold standard would be very hard to do, but boy would it be wonderful. We’d have a standard on which to base our money.”
One can only hope that the business mogul will follow through with his convictions and work with the Republican-controlled Congress to make his vision a reality.
Talk about a politician with some big cojones! Sorry Little Marco, but your insinuation was just proven untrue.
And this isn’t just mere campaign rhetoric from the business mogul — it’s consistent with his own investment portfolio. In Trump’s campaign financial disclosure, the president-elect said that he had an “investment in gold” of as much as $250,000, likely to fight the “volatility in the stock market.” In 2011, he even accepted three 32-ounce gold bars as a security deposit on one of his properties due to his belief that gold is a “viable currency and an accepted universal monetary standard.”
Trump knows in his heart that bringing back the gold standard would greatly benefit the blue collar individuals who “worked all their lives to save,” yet are currently getting “wiped out” from the Fed’s “inflated stock market.”
One can only hope that the business mogul will follow through with his convictions and work with the Republican-controlled Congress to make his vision a reality. After all, studying the feasibility of a return to the gold standard is a part of the official 2016 Republican Party Platform.
Trump’s conservative economic advisers
Perhaps the best indication of Trump’s future monetary policy is the people that he surrounds himself with. And they’re good.
They include John Paulson of Paulson & Co., who saw the housing bubble miles ahead of most economists; Andy Beal, a self-described “libertarian kind of guy” who has attacked the Fed’s inflationary policies; David Malpass of Encima Global, who once signed high-profile protest letter opposing the Fed’s “inflationary” and “distortive” quantitative easing programs; and the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, who told CSIN in 2012 that he is a “very severe critic” of the Fed’s “incredibly easy-money policies of the past decade.”
Trump even has a number of economic advisers that have publicly advocated for a return to the gold standard — among them: Larry Kudlow, a proponent since the 1970s, and Dr. Judy Shelton, who sees the gold standard as a “sophisticated, forward-looking approach.”
But the sharpest economic mind behind Trump’s team is undoubtedly Vice President-elect Mike Pence. While in Congress, Pence expressed regular concern that the Fed was deteriorating the value of the dollar. He introduced legislation to end the central bank’s dual mandate, and even talked up a return to the gold standard due to his belief that “a pro-growth agenda begins with sound monetary policy.”
The ball lies in The Donald’s court
For far too long, the Federal Reserve has been packed with irresponsible, easy-money officials, who may be singlehandedly responsible for causing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed has been shamelessly obedient in its willingness to subsidize government deficits by simply printing money to pay for them (monetizing the debt) — leading to an ever larger growth in government.
This, perhaps, may lead to the even larger catastrophe of high inflation in the years to come. As Peter Bernholz wrote in his book, Monetary Regimes, and Inflation, “…We draw the conclusion that the creation of money to finance a public budget deficit has been the reason for hyperinflations.”
Trump’s appointments can help us win this civil war, shifting the Fed to a conservative majority for the first time in decades (or maybe ever?).
More importantly, he concludes, high inflation is caused simply by both irresponsible legislatures that spend beyond their means as well as by accommodative central banks that all too willingly to offer a helping hand.
Looks familiar, huh?
Thankfully, reports now indicate that as a result of the “Great Stagnation” of President Obama’s past 8 years, a “civil war” over future policy has developed, with many liberal economists in the Federal Reserve now expressing concern that the Fed’s easy-money policies may cause “excessive borrowing and increased leverage.”
Trump’s appointments can help us win this civil war, shifting the Fed to a conservative majority for the first time in decades (or maybe ever?). The stakes couldn’t be higher. Here’s to hoping that the business mogul listens to his heart, as well as his capable economic advisers, and does the right thing. The fiscal stability of our nation depends on it.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
In Part One of this article I discussed the arrival of Grey Champions in previous Fourth Turnings; their attributes, deficiencies, and leadership skills; and why Donald Trump is the Grey Champion of this Fourth Turning – whether you like it or not. Now I will try to make sense of what could happen next.
“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people. The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry.
It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you. The only force strong enough to save our country is us. The only people brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment is you, the American people.”– Donald Trump
Seventy-year-old Donald Trump has assumed the Grey Champion flagstaff. In an increasingly chaotic world, normal working class Americans in flyover country were seeking a leader who could bring order, defeat the corrupt establishment, make tough decisions, and capture the zeitgeist of this moment in history. The ruling elite oligarchs and their fawning minions, occupying their strongholds in New York, California, Illinois, and D.C., are infuriated the peasants have dared to resist. In their secretive secure spaces, the elites are plotting with one purpose in mind – this uprising must be quelled.
They are now fanning the flames of discontent, funding professional protestors, and convincing the useful idiot college student millennials, Trump is dangerous to their future. It seems these mathematically challenged snowflakes have already forgotten about the $10 trillion of the national debt and $1 trillion of student loan debt loaded on their backs by the Obama administration in the last 8 years. This is not to mention the $200 trillion of unfunded welfare liabilities awaiting them as they graduate with degrees in LGBT Studies and great jobs at TGI Fridays in their future.
As the legacy corporate mainstream media outlets hyperventilate over Trump going to dinner without informing them, while scorning and ridiculing his cabinet selections (even when he hasn’t made them yet), this Fourth Turning chaotically churns towards its inevitable bloody climax. The current violence in the streets may be Soros funded domestic terrorism, but it still creates more anger, bitterness, and further unwillingness to compromise or meet in the middle.
This country is manifestly divided between red and blue, with the red geographically occupying 85% of the country and blue centered in the liberal urban bastions of corruption. There are multiple civil wars brewing below the surface, between the establishment and the people; left versus right; rural versus urban; Wall Street and Main Street; and the haves versus the have-nots. It hasn’t turned particularly bloody – YET.
It appears Trump’s cabinet will be filled with establishment insiders. Many of his supporters will be disappointed. The daily minutia flogged by the 24-hour cable news propaganda machines is meaningless in the broad expanse of a twenty year Fourth Turning Crisis. Every president ends up with Washington insiders in their cabinet. At the end of the day, it’s the president who sets the policy, decides what to prioritize, and sets the agenda for the nation. In the case of a Grey Champion assuming command in the midst of a Fourth Turning, events and his response to such events will dictate the course of the country and most likely the world for the next four or eight years.
The market reaction to Trump’s ascendancy has a stench about it. On election night futures dropped 800 points, but markets turned positive the next morning and haven’t looked back since. The stock market hovers at all-time highs. It’s almost as if the big swinging dicks on Wall Street decided to send a message – they are still in charge. It doesn’t matter who’s in the oval office, Wall Street calls the shots. If you cooperate and do as you’re told, the markets will ascend. If you attempt to implement any policy they don’t like, a crash will be manufactured (ex. TARP rejection by Congress). The currency and bond markets are in turmoil across the globe. Something is clearly getting ready to blow.
You can ignore the day to day gyrations, as the three core elements of this Crisis – debt, civic decay, global disorder – will produce a chain reaction implosion during Trump’s reign of power. The national debt is on automatic pilot to breach $1 trillion per year for as far as the eye can see. A $1 trillion infrastructure plan, rebuilding the military, building walls, massive tax cuts, trade wars and no spending cuts are a recipe for fiscal disaster. Trump’s advisors seem to be following Dick Cheney’s advice that deficits don’t matter. Steve Bannon’s documentary – Generation Zero – was based on the Fourth Turning, so you would think he would understand what’s coming next.
Interest on the national debt was $433 billion in FY16. That colossal amount was with a near record low weighted interest rate of 2.2%. In case you haven’t noticed the 10 Year Treasury rate has skyrocketed from 1.32% in July to 2.36% today. A 1% increase in rates across the yield curve will result in a 50% increase in interest on the national debt to $650 billion. Soc Gen’s Albert Edwards believes the current bond route could drive the 10 Year Treasury rate to 3.25%. That would blow a hole in our annual deficits. Isn’t leverage great?
The housing market was already rolling over due to high prices and stagnant household incomes. With mortgage rates jumping by 1% and possibly more, housing bubble 2.0 meets pin 2.0. Auto loan defaults were already surging, as every Tom, Shaniqua, and Julio in America got a new vehicle with a low payment lease or 7 years 0% loan. Over 25% of all student loans are not being repaid. The stock market bubble has been sustained by corporate CEOs borrowing to buy back their stock at all-time highs. Their corporate earnings have been falling for several quarters in a row and now the interest rates on their record levels of debt are going higher.
In addition, the USD is now at a 13 year high, up 10% since May and 30% since mid-2014. This will further weaken the profits of our global conglomerates. Making America great again by bringing back manufacturing jobs will be DOA if the USD keeps rising. It just so happens earnings are falling with interest rates and currency rising when stock market valuations are at record highs. The euphoria of the Trump victory will be short lived as the country officially enters recession and the stock market drops by 30% or more within the next year.
The civic decay already proliferating during and after the election will be exacerbated as bad debt wipes out financial institutions, corporations, and willfully ignorant consumer borrowers. The lesson of 2008 has already been forgotten. Rather than rolling out his grand vision, Trump will be dealing with a financial crisis which will make 2008 look like a walk in Central Park. Will he follow the same failed policies used after 2008 – NIRP, QE, and saving Wall Street at the expense of Main Street?
Or will he level with the American people, allow Wall Street banks to go bankrupt, let the free market purge the system of trillions in bad debt, tackle the unfunded entitlement liabilities, and have Americans endure a Depression in order to reset our economic system? It will take a Grey Champion with a high level of moral fortitude and courage to demand such sacrifice from the citizens of this country.
With the left already trying to provoke a race war, once the Depression takes grip and the social safety net of entitlements begins to fray, the civic decay in the urban ghettos will reach a tipping point. Cities will burn, looters will run roughshod as police refuse to enter lawless neighborhoods, and commerce will grind to a halt.
In this war of the rising and fading elites, there is no common ground or incentive to compromise.
Historian Michael Grant identified profound political disunity in the ruling elite as a key cause of the dissolution of the Roman Empire. Grant described this dynamic in his excellent account The Fall of the Roman Empire.
The chapter titles of the book illuminate the complex causes of profound political disunity in the ruling elite:
The Gulfs Between the Classes: a.k.a. soaring income/wealth inequality: check.
The Credibility Gap: The Mainstream Media lauds itself and a self-serving, failing elite: check.
The Partnerships That Failed: the SillyCon Valley tech titans were supposed to “save” the neoliberal elite by managing social media the way the MSM managed broadcast propaganda/”news”: check.
The Groups That Opted Out: nobody “important” noticed those who opted out of the neoliberal Kool-Aid: check.
The Undermining of Effort: if I don’t get my way, I’ll block yours. There is no common ground left.
Is there any doubt about the profound political disunity in America’s ruling elite? I have addressed this many times over the past seven years, most recently a year ago in Profound Political Disunity Is Now Pitting Rising Elites Against Fading Elites (November 24, 2015).
Historian Peter Turchin explores the dynamic of social disintegration in his new book Ages of Discord. The cycle of social disintegration and integration is essentially universal to complex societies–a reality I recently discussed inUngovernable Nation, Ungovernable Economy (October 11, 2016)
USA 2017-2020: An Ungovernable Nation? (October 10, 2016)
The globalist, neoliberal, neoconservative consensus in the Ruling Elite has splintered, a reality I have described as a splintering of the Deep State, the unelected government that continues on regardless of which party or elected politico is currently in office.
I explored this years ago in Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014) and more recently in Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016), Why the Deep State Is Dumping Hillary (September 26, 2016) and These Blast Points on Hillary’s Campaign… Only The Deep State Is So Precise (October 31, 2016).
What few in the pundit class see is that significant segments of the Deep State view the neo-con neoliberal strategy as an irredeemable failure. But the camp of neoliberals and globalists will not concede defeat and relinquish their hubris-soaked power without a fight.
Indeed, it is clear that this fading sector of the Deep State is now throwing everything in its power at Trump, his appointees, and anyone who dares question the fake-progressive neoliberal neocon narrative.
Originally appeared at The Free Thought Project
Julian Assange cautioned all of us a while back, in the vein of revelations similar to those provided by Edward Snowden, that Google — the insidious search engine with a reputation for powering humanity’s research — plays the dark hand role in furthering U.S. imperialism and foreign policy agendas.
Now, as the Wikileaks founder faces days of questioning by a Swedish special prosecutor over rape allegations inside his Ecuadorian Embassy haven in London today — and particularly in wake of the presidential election — Assange’s warning Google “is not what it seems” must be revisited.
Under intense scrutiny by the U.S. State Department for several controversial Wikileaks’ publications of leaked documents in 2011, Assange first met Google Executive Chairman, then-CEO, Eric Schmidt, who approached the political refugee under the premise of a new book. Schmidt, whose worth Forbes estimates exceeds $11 billion, partnered with Council on Foreign Relations and State Department veteran, Jared Cohen, for the work, tentatively titled The Empire of the Mind — and asked Assange for an interview.
Later acknowledging naïvte in agreeing to meet the pair of tech heavyweights, Assange found afterward how enmeshed in and integral to U.S. global agendas Schmidt and Cohen had become.
In fact, both have exhibited quite the fascination with technology’s role in burgeoning revolutions — including, but not-at-all limited to, the Arab Spring. Schmidt created a position for Cohen in 2009, originally called Google Ideas, now Google Jigsaw, and the two began weaving the company’s importance to the United States into narratives in articles, political donations, and through Cohen’s former roles at the State Department.
That same year, Schmidt and Cohen co-authored an article for the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, which, seven years hence, appears a rather prescient discussion of Google’s self-importance in governmental affairs. Under the subheading “COALITIONS OF THE CONNECTED,” they wrote [all emphasis added]:
“In an era when the power of the individual and the group grows daily, those governments that ride the technological wave will clearly be best positioned to assert their influence and bring others into their orbits. And those that do not will find themselves at odds with their citizens.
“Democratic states that have built coalitions of their militaries have the capacity to do the same with their connection technologies. […] they offer a new way to exercise the duty to protect citizens around the world who are abused by their governments or barred from voicing their opinions.”
Perhaps appearing laudable on its surface — at least to some degree — as Assange pointed out, there is a self-mischaracterization by the American and other Western governments and inaccurately-monikered ‘non-governmental organizations’ that their interests in other nations’ affairs are innately good.
This cult of government and non-government insiders have a firm belief their goals should be the unassailable, unquestionable motivator for American imperialism — whatever the U.S. thinks best as a “benevolent superpower,” so should the rest of the ‘non-evil’ world.
“They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them,” Assange wrote in When Google Met Wikileaks. “This is the impenetrable banality of ‘don’t be evil.’ They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem.”
Cohen, an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the notorious Council on Foreign Relations, lists his expertise in “terrorism; radicalization; the impact of connection technologies on 21st-century statecraft; Iran,” and has worked for both Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton at the Department of State. Fortune, calling Cohen a “fascinating fellow,” noted that in his bookChildren of Jihad, the young diplomat, and technology enthusiast “advocates for the use of technology for social upheaval in the Middle East and elsewhere.”
Under the auspices of discussing technological aspects at Wikileaks’ disposal for the upcoming book, Schmidt; Cohen; Lisa Shields, a CFR vice president at the time; and Scott Malcomson — who would shortly afterward be appointed Rice’s lead speech advisor for her role as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — descended on Assange’s safe haven in Norfolk, outside London.
It wasn’t until weeks and months after this gathering Assange fully realized how closely Google operates in tandem with the government of the United States — and how perilous the innocent mask of its public intentions truly is in light of such cooperation.
Ironically enough, in Wikileaks’ publishing three years later of the Global Intelligence Files — internal emails from the private security firm, Stratfor — Cohen’s and Google’s true depth of influence became strikingly apparent. Assange wrote:
“Cohen’s directorate appeared to cross over from public relations and ‘corporate responsibility’ work into active corporate intervention in foreign affairs at a level that is normally reserved for states. Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s ‘director of regime change.’ According to the emails, he was trying to plant his fingerprints on some of the major historical events in the contemporary Middle East. He could be placed in Egypt during the revolution, meeting with Wael Ghonim, the Google employee whose arrest and imprisonment hours later would make him a PR-friendly symbol of the uprising in the Western press. Meetings had been planned in Palestine and Turkey, both of which—claimed Stratfor emails—were killed by the senior Google leadership as too risky. Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to ‘engage the Iranian communities closer to the border,’ as part of Google Ideas’ project on repressive societies.”
However, most significantly, Stratfor vice president for intelligence Fred Burton, also a former official with the State Department, wrote in one of those emails:
“Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality, they are doing things the CIA cannot do . . . [Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the shit-bag.”
Of course, the massive company — its various facets now under the umbrella of Alphabet, Inc. — has never been fully absent government involvement. Research for what would become ultimately become Google had been undertaken by company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in cooperation with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — the strictly secretive technological testing and planning arm for the Department of Defense.
Indeed Google’s continued coziness with the diplomacy, military, and intelligence wings of the United States government should not be, though perpetually are, ignored.
Political establishment bulldogs on both sides of the aisle and their cheerleader corporate media presstitutes will continue for months or years to debate the failed presidential bid of Hillary Clinton and the apparently shocking rise and election of Donald Trump, but technology played a starring role in those events. Several reports last year cautioned Google’s algorithms could swing the election — and not only the American election but national elections around the globe.
“We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” said Robert Epstein, a psychologist with the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and author of one of the studies, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”
Considering lines between the tech giant and the government have essentially been abandoned, this revelation puts power and influence into acute, if not terrifying, perspective.
Google’s ties with the Pentagon and intelligence communities never ceased. Revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request cited by Assange, Google founder Brin, together with Schmidt, corresponded casually by email with National Security Agency chief Gen. Keith Alexander in 2012, discussing a program called the “Enduring Society Framework.” Alexander wrote to Brin:
“Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base are valuable to ensure ESF’s efforts have a measurable impact.”
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Industrial Base is “the worldwide industrial complex that enables research and development, as well as design, production, delivery, and maintenance of military weapons systems, subsystems, and components or parts, to meet U.S. military requirements .”
It also provides “products and services that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military operations.”
Although Schmidt and Cohen ultimately watered down their book title The Empire of the Mind into the more palatable and less blatantly imperialistic, The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations, and Business, its message amounted to a self-congratulatory justification for broader foreign policy goals. Nefarious warmonger Henry Kissinger, for one, praised the work, which included telling lines by the Google execs, such as:
“What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cybersecurity companies will be to the twenty-first.”
So ubiquitous has Google become, its presence — like similarly U.S. government-connected Facebook — is nearly indispensable in the daily lives of hundreds of millions worldwide.
However well-known is the government intelligence framework in such platforms, it would be ill-advised to ignore the far darker Machiavellian aspects of private corporate technology’s intersection with global political agendas — and the force that coalition wields around the planet.
Whether or not the American establishment’s empire suffered a blow in the election of Donald Trump will be a debatable point for some time, but it’s a veritable guarantee its cogs — seeing themselves as the planet’s saviors — have planned in advance for just such an occasion.
“If the future of the internet is to be Google,” Assange noted, “that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union, and even in Europe—for whom the internet embodies the promise of an alternative to US cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.”
Empire will remain empire until its dying breath — particularly if it functions under the obstinate belief it, alone, can save the world. Julian Assange should be praised for the transparency and insight he and Wikileaks have readily given the world, instead of excoriated and blamed for faults which lie in the establishment framework — it is this political, intelligence, and military web deserving of a pointed finger.
Reprinted from Russia Insider.
The pollsters have done it again. Just four days after the Independent reported that pollsters said Marine Le Pen has “next to no chance” of winning the French presidency…
Pollsters say Marine Le Pen has next to no chance of winning the French presidency https://t.co/b6pi8zjmdY
— The Independent (@Independent) November 16, 2016
… today we learned that contrary to previous polls, the leader of National Front leader Marine – the person whose surge in the past few years has been most equated to the French populist revolt that has taken place in the UK and US – has taken a commanding lead in the latest French presidential election poll.
As the Independent writes in “Marine Le Pen takes huge lead over nearest rival in new French presidential election poll“, according to the latest, Nov. 20, Ipsos poll, Le Pen had 29% of the vote when pitted against Nicolas Sarkozy, who was eight points behind, and held a 15-point lead over the Parti de Gauche’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the poll released by Ipsos, which analysed five scenarios with different frontrunners.
France, Ipsos poll:
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 29%
Sarkozy (LR-EPP): 21%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT) 14%
Valls (PS-S&D): 14%… https://t.co/ZCFxaXtq2z
— Europe Elects (@EuropeElects) November 20, 2016
The full IPSOS breakdown is as follows:
A similar result emerges from an IFOP poll released on November 17, according to which Le Pen has a 30 to 26 lead over (until recently) presidential frontrunner Alain Juppe, 28 to 18 lead over former president Sarkozy, and a 29 to 20 lead over Fillon.
In 2012, Le Pen came third in the first round of the French presidential race with 17.9% of the vote, behind Mr. Sarkozy with 27.18% and eventual winner Mr. Hollande with 28.63%. Four years later she is, as of this moment, an undisputed winner in all three head-to-head matchups.
The latest poll comes at the same time as Italian PM Matteo Renzi, who is almost assured to lose the constitutional referendum set to take place in two weeks on December 4, told his entourage this weekend that the government would fall if he loses Dec. 4 constitutional referendum, according to newspaper La Repubblica. “It’s very simple: if I lose the referendum this government falls. At that point we’ll see who is capable of reaching an agreement for another administration,” the paper cites Renzi as saying.
And so Europe is panicking again: the latest French polls are “likely to add to growing fears that the rise of global populism could see Ms Le Pen on course to clinch the French presidential win, in the wake of the UK’s Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s victory in the US election” according to the Independent, which adds that Le Pen’s lead “came as leading French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy warned people had lost interest in whether politicians tell the truth, in a development he said could set the National Front on course to occupy the Élysée Palace.”
“The people listen less and less to policy and they even seem less concerned about whether the candidates are telling the truth or not.
“They are more interested in the performance, in the theatrical quality of what is said than whether it is true. And as we know, a fascist can put on a very successful performance.”
Here we beg to differ: it’s not that people have lost interest in whether politicians tell the truth – it’s the realization that politicians are always lying, so why not go with the one candidate who at least presents a glimmer of hope of breaching the establishment. Confused? See president-elect Trump.
Indeed, “If Trump is possible, then everything is possible. Nothing, from now on, is unimaginable,” Mr. Levy told The Telegraph.
Additionally, the very troubling – if only for the French and European establishment – polls also come as French conservatives vote on Sunday to choose their presidential nominee to face Ms. Le Pen in the May election.
Of the seven candidates competing for a position in the primaries, the three with a chance of winning include former president Mr. Sarkozy and former prime ministers Francois Fillon and Alain Juppe. A second vote will be held next week to decide between the two frontrunners. Many “pro-status quo” are hoping Juppé – who is currently polling seven per cent ahead when pitted against Ms. Le Pen in the latest Ipsos poll – wins the nomination.
Meanwhile, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who last week warned that “Europe is in danger of falling apart” unless Germany and France unleash a torrent of fiscal support for the people whom they ignored for years at the expense of propping up capital markets, said a Le Pen win next year could be “possible” and has warned of the danger of electing a far-right president.
For those unfamiliar, Le Pen has led the far-right National Front since 2011, when she succeeded her father Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party’s founder. Since taking over the party, Ms. Le Pen has made efforts to distance herself from her father’s openly nationalistic views, who has been convicted repeatedly for hate speech and contesting crimes against humanity. Just like Trump, critics have frequently branded Marine Le Pen a “fascist” and accused her of exploiting growing anti-immigration sentiment.
Le Pen was among the first world leaders to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory two weeks ago and said that “Americans have rejected the status quo” with their vote, an outcome she hopes to repeat in France.
The 48-year-old appeared on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Remembrance Sunday, causing a crowd of Unite Against Fascism protesters to gather outside the BBC building.
The UK’s Jeremy Corbyn, who also appeared on the show, told Marr: “She uses this populism against minorities in order to get herself elected. The reality is she does not have an economic answer to the problems faced by the left behind communities in France any more than Ukip has an economic answer to the left behind communities in Britain.”
Well, it’s politics after all: one will do and say anything to get elected. In fact, the people’s realization of precisely that is why Trump and Le Pen exist.
Reprinted with permission from Zero Hedge.
The American Revolution was inspired by one book entitled Common Sense by Thomas Paine. We even find British political tokens with the saying “END OF PAIN“, which was obviously a pun on his name. He was demonized by the British as the man who inspired the Revolution. According to this intense studies of the Continental Army at Valley Forge, the average age of George Washington’s soldiers in 1777 was between 20 and 25. That was the average because the youth who joined were 16 to 18. The last verified surviving American veteran of the war was John Gray of Virginia who joined the Continental Army at the age of just 16 in 1780. George Washington himself wrote: that “to place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.” Of the New England militia, Washington wrote, “Their officers generally speaking are the most indifferent kind of people I ever saw.” Militia privates ignored commands issued by officers of the Regular Army, which disturbed Washington. The common age of a Continental soldier was quite young. One historian found that in nine New Jersey towns nearly 75% of boys who were just fifteen and sixteen. There are accounts of people such as artilleryman Jeremiah Levering who entered the service at twelve or thirteen, and hundreds more under the legal age of sixteen served in all services. Thousands more were under twenty. It was the youth who are inspired and do not appreciate the tragedy of war.
If we look at the Russian Revolution, again we find a critical book that was at the root of the split entitled What is to be Done? Lenin wrote this work while serving a sentence of exile. The book was first published in Germany during 1902, but it was outlawed for publication and distribution in Russia. Lenin totally rejected the standpoint that the “proletariat” who he regarded as workers or working-class people collectively. This class in Roman times were called the plebeians. The proletariat, Lenin argued, was being driven spontaneously to revolutionary Socialism by capitalism itself, which he further contended had predisposed the workers to the acceptance of of Marxism.
Lenin also took the position that the case for workers will not spontaneously become Marxists simply by fighting battles over wages with their employers. Lenin argued that Marxists needed to form a political party to publicize their ideas and persuade workers to become Marxists. Lenin then took a step further arguing that to understand politics you must understand all of society, not just workers and their economic struggles with their employers. Therefore, to move the workers to become political and to become Marxists, they needed to learn about all of society, not just their own small corner of within it.
This is very important to understand because this is the same precise formula in operation today among the American youth. They are not the “workers” for most are simply students. They would not respond the the traditional class struggle of the early 20th century when the industrial revolution was just beginning and the confrontation between workers and employers were a major battle. Lacking that sort of class-struggle amount children who are not even employed, can only be accomplished precisely as Lenin argued, only from without. They would not spontaneously respond to poor working conditions since they do not work. The sphere from which a revolution can arise becomes possible only by obtaining knowledge is the sphere of interrelations between all classes on a theoretical basis. They do not understand the principle that Wall Street raises money to fund small business helping them grow to create jobs and the economy. Instead, the bankers engaged in proprietary trading are viewed as “Wall Street” when in fact they are simply speculators who bribe politicians.Lenin also made it clear that a revolution would only be achievable by the strong leadership of one person or a select few over the masses. Lenin set forth that once the revolution had successfully overthrown the government, this individual leader must release power, to allow socialism to fully encompass the nation. Lenin’s view of a socialist intelligentsia demonstrated that he was departing from Marxist theory in this regard. Lenin agreed with the Marxist idea of eliminating social classes creating the idea of a French commune from where Marx derived his theory, but Lenin saw a ruling class should maintain control creating distinctions between those in politics and the people not much different from our Western political classes. Lenin did not effectively support the Marxist theory of a classless society. The party split of Bolsheviks (majority) and Mensheviks (minority) in 1903, the differences originally began to surface with the publication of What is to be Done? Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate and were more positive towards the liberal opposition and the dominant peasant-based Socialist Revolutionary party whereas the Bolsheviks saw the need for a strong political ruling class.
As discussed in What is to be Done?, Lenin clearly believed that a rigid political structure was necessary to effectively initiate a formal revolution and to maintain it. This idea was met with opposition from his once close followers including Julius Martov, Georgy Plekhanov, Leon Trotsky, and Pavel Axelrod. Plekhanov and Lenin’s major dispute arose addressing the topic of nationalizing land or leaving it for private use. Lenin wanted to nationalize everything to aid in collectivization to be centrally controlled by the political class. Plekhanov thought worker motivation would remain higher if individuals were able to maintain their own property, which was true.
The average party member was very young and that was the entire key to brainwash the youth who had no experience in life to understand their were really surrendering personal values and freedom to the political class as they are doing once against in the United States. In 1907, 22% of Bolsheviks were all under 20, with a staggering 37% were all just 20–24. Only about 16% were between the ages of 25 to 29. Therefore, 75% of the Bolsheviks were under 30 years old. The total membership was 8,400 in 1905, rising to 13,000 in 1906 and 46,100 by 1907.
Therefore, beware of the youth. They are easily influenced and will have little regard for life for they will see themselves throughout history as the great reformers. They will not listen to Trump nor will they give him a chance for the majority of newspapers and mainstream media will attack Trump at every possible opportunity since they are bought and paid for by the establishment. We are witnessing the second American Revolution in its infancy. The United States will break apart as was the case with Rome. Note the reverse of the the first Gallic Emperor Postumus (259-268AD). He is raising the female symbol of Gaul promising restoration of the norm – sound familiar? CHANGE!
George Washington became president on February 4th, 1789. The beginning of the Decline & Fall of the United States began with the swearing in of Obama 224 years later – January 20th, 2013. The peak in government came with 2015.75 insofar as the visible “confidence” in government. The first opportunity where the United States will break apart will be 23 years from 2013 and that will perhaps by the Pi target from the 2032 high – 3.14 years later bringing us to 2036.
We should then see the shift of the financial capital of the world to Asia with the rise of both India and China. The seed of this breakup are being planted right now by both Obama and Hillary. Their Marxist philosophies were what destroyed both China and Russia. They are directly responsible for the collapse in world GDP growth. The refugee invasion into Europe is akin to the invasion of the barbarians into the Roman Empire. Both groups had little respect for the culture and open contempt for much of it. They are not interested as a whole in adopting the European culture, they are intent upon imposing their own upon Europe. The great divide in the United States will get much worse and Hillary will be the spokesperson to lead the nation into socialist chaos.
Centralized government is the doom of humankind. It is people like Hillary and Obama who have, as Thomas Paine observed, “confounded society with government, as to leave no distinction between them.” Their goal is to eliminate personal freedom and impose their doctrine by sheer force. The Puritans imposed the same policies in England after their revolution they called “Glorious” after beheading the king. They made it a felony to kiss your wife in public, outlawed sports because it led to cursing, outlawed plays for they were filled with lies, and outlawed Christmas because you should be praying not giving gifts and partying. (see Roots of Evil). Whenever one group thinks it has the right to impose its philosophy upon the whole, civil war breaks out historically.
Reprinted from Armstrong Economics.
Senator Joe McCarthy perfected the technique in the United States: whenever you disagree with anybody, don’t debate ideas, go right into name calling. In McCarthy’s day, the epithet of choice was “Communist.” In recent years, it has morphed into “racist, sexist, homophobe, latinophobe, Islamophobe, xenophobe etc., etc.”
There were Communists in McCarthy’s day, which made his technique seem to work for a while. Richard Nixon was accused of being a McCarthyite because he thought State Department employee and Georgetown upper crust favorite Alger Hiss was a Stalinist agent, but eventually Soviet records confirmed that Hiss was indeed a Stalinist agent. Because there are racists and sexists in our society, it makes it easier to try to destroy people with these epithets whether they fit or not.
Hillary Clinton called this “the politics of personal destruction.” She complained that it was being leveled at her, but she gave at least as much as she got. The whole recent campaign was consumed by it, and one had reason to hope that the end of the campaign would provide some relief. But apparently, this is not to be. The mainstream media won’t let it go.
Today’s NPR Evening Edition discussed some recent Trump appointments. Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, was described as a racist. Anybody with any familiarity with Sessions knows that this is a complete falsehood. He isn’t remotely a racist.
The basis for using the label is the claim of a single person, now dead, that in the 1970’s Sessions had used the phrase “white folks,” which Sessions said had been just “folks.” There was also a joke from the same era about KKK’ers smoking pot. Note that this was over a quarter century ago.
Evening Edition then moved on to interviewing someone from Foreign Policy Magazine who described Trump White House senior staff appointee Steve Bannon as an “ethno-nationalist.” At first hearing, this sounded tame compared to the flood of recent epithets flung at Bannon: “racist, anti-Semite,” etc. But none of this has a shred of evidence behind it. I have had some experience of Bannon myself and as his colleague Peter Schweizer very accurately said, “ he doesn’t have a racist or bigoted bone in his body.” If this isn’t defamation and libel, I don’t know what is.
This is a rather minor quibble, but also consider the term “ethno-nationalist.” What does it mean? What can it mean? America is famously a nation that is not an ethnicity. So if I am an American nationalist, I cannot be against any American ethnic group.
Why then is this illogical terminology being used on this show and accepted without demure by the host? Because it is a sneaky way to convey the shameful falsehood that Bannon is a white racist whose allegiance is not to the nation but to his so-called race. I say so-called race because no one ever has or ever could define exactly what a white person is in scientific terms.
Bannon himself couldn’t care less about anybody’s race. Nor is he anti-semitic, Islamophobic, or any other “ ist” or “phobe.” It is all a witch hunt with not a shred of factual basis. Tolerance of other people and other views is one of his cardinal beliefs. Just look at his staff at Breitbart. He has hired and promoted gays, Jews, and Muslims.
Sessions and Bannon were just warm-ups. Following the segments on Sessions and Bannon, NPRs Evening Edition then moved to interview the grandson of a Jew who escaped Austria before World War Two to go to Palestine and thereby saved his life. The grandson’s lesson seemed to be that we should regard Trump as some kind of Hitler figure and protect ourselves before it is too late.
To suggest in this manner that Trump is some kind of Hitlerian anti-Semite is ludicrous. One of his closest advisors, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, is an orthodox Jew, and his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism.
NPR made no effort to balance any of these blatant McCarthite lies and insinuations. It is ironic. The media won plaudits from historians for going after McCarthy when most politicians feared to confront him. For years, there was no greater smear word among left journalists than McCarthyite. And now it is they who are practicing it and won’t give it up.
Perhaps the only way to make the mainstream media reconsider is for consumers to complain to their advertisers. (Yes, NPR has advertisers.) That might get their attention. Evidently the credibility they have lost with such infantile behavior does not bother them.
As an aside, an emphasis on “political correctness” and in particular the frequent use of the epithets “racist and sexist” in conjunction with “class” (classist?) is sometimes described as “ Cultural Marxism.” The background for this is that Marx himself said that everything about us is determined by class.
For example, in this view, there is no such thing as human logic. There is only the logic of the working classes and the quite different logic of the bosses. Another term for this, rebutted by Mises in Human Action, is polylogicism.
Paul Cantor recently observed that the left had become so fixated on “race” and “gender” that it didn’t notice Trump stealing “class” from them. Those of us who don’t think that anything is absolutely “determined” by race, gender, class, or you name it can especially appreciate the joke.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
When push comes to shove, many men eat what they fancy or what’s on offer in the supermarket or work canteen.
And in this day and age it’s usually stodgy, beige and a slow but steady route to heart disease.
But there a few simple tricks that can make a massive difference to your diet – and overall heath.
Here, Rob Hobson, head of nutrition at Healthspan and author of The Detox Kitchen Bible, reveals what every man needs in his diet…
HEALTH BENEFITS: HEART, ERECTILE FUNCTION, FERTILITY, MOOD/DEPRESSION
Oily fish such as fresh salmon, tuna, herring, mackerel, trout, sardines and canned salmon all contain omega-3 fatty acids.
These fatty acids must be obtained from the diet, which is why they are referred to as being essential.
Intake in the UK is well below the recommended intake of one serving per week, with many men not eating any oily fish at all.
Omega-3 fats are most commonly associated with reducing the risk of heart disease.
This is because they increase levels of good (HDL) cholesterol and produce compounds known as prostaglandins that help to reduce inflammation in the body.
Long-term inflammation can damage healthy cells and weaken the immune system and this is thought to be a contributory factor for many diseases including those of the heart and also cancer.
Heart disease is the leading cause of premature death in the UK affecting more men than women.
And one of the earliest warning signs of heart disease is erectile dysfunction – because the body needs a good blood supply for an erection.
That’s because the penile arteries are smaller than coronary ones, so become furred up faster.
According to the Sexual Advice Association, a man in his 40s with erectile dysfunction has a 50-fold greater risk of having a heart attack over the next ten years.
So one great reason to look after the health of your heart!
Even if you are able to rise to the occasion, low intake of omega-3 fatty acids may impact on fertility.
This is because as semen is rich in compounds called prostaglandins.
Studies have shown that men with a low sperm count, poor sperm motility (movement) or abnormal sperm may have low levels of them.
TIP: Try eating one or two servings of oily fish each week either as grilled fillets or even dips such as smoked mackerel pate.
Some research suggests omega-3 and vitamin D may help relieve the symptoms of depression.
However this is more likely from a supplement than oily fish as the concentration of essential fatty acids is much higher, so it could be worth taking a good quality omega-3 and Vitamin D3 supplement – especially vitamin D during the winter months.
While you can get a little vitamin D from foods such as oily fish, eggs and fortified foods I recommend taking Healthspan vitamin D3 (£11.95 for 240 tablets) during the winter months to keep you levels topped up.
People who call themselves “progressives” claim to be forward-looking, but a remarkable amount of the things they say and do are based on looking backward.
One of the maddening aspects of the thinking, or non-thinking, on the political left is their failure to understand that there is nothing they can do about the past. Whether people on the left are talking about college admissions or criminal justice, or many other decisions, they go on and on about how some people were born with lesser chances in life than other people.
Whoever doubted it? But, once someone who has grown up is being judged by a college admissions committee or by a court of criminal justice, there is nothing that can be done about their childhood. Other institutions can deal with today’s children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and should, but the past is irrevocable. Even where there are no economic differences among various families in which children are raised, there are still major differences in the circumstances into which people are born, even within the same family, which affect their chances in later life as adults.
For example, among children of the same parents, raised under the same roof, the first born, as a group, have done better than their later siblings, whether measured by IQ tests or by becoming National Merit Scholarship finalists or by various other achievements.
The only child has also done better, on average, than children who have siblings. The advantage of the first born may well be due to the fact that he or she was an only child for some time, perhaps for several formative years.
By the time people have grown up and apply to college, all that is history. Nothing that a college admissions committee can do will change anything about their childhoods. The only things these committees’ decisions can affect are the present and the future. This is not rocket science.
Nevertheless, there are people who urge college admissions committees to let disadvantaged students be admitted with lower test scores or other academic indicators.
Those who say such things seldom even attempt to see what the actual consequences of such policies have been. The prevailing preconceptions — sometimes called what “everybody knows” — are sufficient for them.
Factual studies show that admitting students to institutions whose standards they do not meet often leads to needless academic failures, even among students with above average ability, who could have succeeded at other institutions whose standards they do meet.
The most comprehensive of these studies of Americans is the book “Mismatch” by Sander and Taylor. Similar results in other countries are cited in my own book, “Affirmative Action Around the World.”
When it comes to criminal justice, there is much the same kind of preoccupation on the left with the past that cannot be changed. Murderers may in some cases have had unhappy childhoods, but there is absolutely nothing that anybody can do to change their childhoods after they are adults.
The most that can be done is to keep murderers from committing more murders, and to deter others from committing murder. People on the left who want to give murderers “another chance” are gambling with the lives of innocent people. That is one of many other examples of the cruel consequences of seemingly compassionate decisions and policies.
Ironically, people on the left who are preoccupied with the presumably unhappy childhoods of murderers, which they can do nothing about, seldom show similar concern about the present and future unhappy childhoods of the orphans of people who have been murdered.
Such inconsistencies are not peculiar to our time, though they seem to be more pervasive today. But the left has been trying, for more than 200 years, to mitigate or eliminate punishments in general, and capital punishment in particular. What is peculiar to our time is the degree to which the views of the left have become laws and policies.
A long overdue backlash against those views has begun in some Western nations, of which the recent election results in the United States are just one symptom. How all this will end is by no means clear. Just as the past cannot be changed, so the future cannot be predicted with certainty.
It is beyond belief that I have to continue to write about the problems with the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine has a long history of not protecting the vast majority who receives if from becoming ill with the flu. Nor does it change mortality rates. Nor does it change hospitalization rates.
The flu vaccine is ineffective for the elderly—the most susceptible group recommended to receive annual injections. Although the Powers-That-Be will say the flu vaccine is approximately 50% effective, the real data provides a different picture. (I have written about this many times in my newsletter and in blog posts. Go here to read one post.
The Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group who does not take Big Pharma Cartel money has reported that the flu vaccine does not protect adults against influenza nor does it affect the number of people hospitalized for the flu. Furthermore, Cochrane scientists have reported that the flu vaccine does not prevent people from missing work due to influenza illness. (1)
There is not one randomized, double-blind controlled study that shows the flu vaccine is effective at preventing the flu. Not one. In fact, there are studies that show those who get the flu vaccine are more susceptible to other viral agents.
Do all hospital workers need to be vaccinated with the flu vaccine? There is not a single study showing that this practice is effective.
di Ryan McMaken
L'ultima settimana ha visto il prezzo medio del petrolio arrivare a $45 al barile, secondo la misura West Texas Intermediate, e ieri il prezzo del petrolio è sceso del 3% a causa della contrazione della domanda.
Ciò significa che i prezzi del petrolio non si sono spostati di molto sin dall'aprile scorso, quando il prezzo medio settimanale era compreso tra i $40 ed i $44 al barile.
Lo scorso aprile, l'OPEC e molti nel mondo degli investimenti prevedevano un'inversione repentina dei prezzi del petrolio. Phil Flynn di PRICE Futures Group, per esempio, ha predetto a gennaio di quest'anno che "il petrolio greggio farà baldoria come nel 1999." Beh, manca ancora un po' prima della fine dell'anno, ma nonostante l'affermazione del Fiscal Times secondo cui "il petrolio rimbalzerà nel 2016", una ripresa del petrolio quest'anno è sempre più improbabile.
Purtroppo — per coloro che puntano su un aumento dei prezzi — il presunto taglio della produzione non è mai arrivato. E gli aumenti previsti della domanda non sono mai stati sufficienti a colmare il divario tra produzione e consumo. L'AIE prevede che il divario si chiuderà il prossimo anno, ma deve ancora realizzarsi. Inizialmente si credeva che la produzione avrebbe subito un calo seguendo la scia del crollo del 2014, e poi una ripresa economica avrebbe stimolato una maggiore domanda. Ci hanno detto che il calo dei prezzi del petrolio era quasi esclusivamente una questione legata all'eccesso di offerta — che la crescente domanda avrebbe fatto aumentare di nuovo i prezzi. Ma la crescente domanda non s'è mai materializzata.
Ebbene sono passati quasi sei mesi da allora e i prezzi del petrolio restano in calo di oltre il 55% rispetto a dov'erano a metà del 2014. I prezzi del petrolio hanno toccato il fondo a febbraio 2016, a circa $30 al barile. Da allora i prezzi sono saliti più di dieci dollari, ma di certo non si avvicinano ai prezzi del 2014 che potremmo etichettare come "ripresa".
Questo primo grafico mostra i prezzi del petrolio (WTI) in dollari del 2015:
Ma perché la produzione non è scesa tanto quanto è stato detto? I sauditi non hanno tagliato la produzione di petrolio. L'Arabia Saudita è in difficoltà finanziarie e ha dovuto tenere aperto il rubinetto del petrolio per risolvere i suoi problemi finanziari interni. Nick Cunninghom ha parlato di questo argomento lo scorso dicembre:
L'Arabia Saudita è sotto una tremenda pressione. Il governo saudita sta valutando di tagliare la spesa di un incredibile 10%, cercando di fermare l'ascesa del deficit di bilancio. Il FMI prevede che l'Arabia Saudita potrebbe avere un deficit di bilancio ammontante a circa il 20% del PIL.
Il dolore si sta manifestando in modi diversi. Non solo il Regno deve tagliare le spese, ma si è anche rivolto pesantemente ai mercati obbligazionari. Per la prima volta in otto anni i prezzi bassi del petrolio hanno costretto l'Arabia Saudita ad emettere obbligazioni con scadenza oltre i 12 mesi, raccogliendo finora 35 miliardi di riyal (circa $10 miliardi).
Lo scorso marzo stava diventando piuttosto chiaro che i paesi dell'OPEC non avrebbero tagliato in modo significativo la produzione, e il "congelamento della produzione" era solamente uno spauracchio. L'Arabia Saudita e altri paesi dell'OPEC hanno disperatamente bisogno di entrate.
Nel frattempo l'Arabia Saudita ha riguadagnato l'etichetta come più grande produttore di petrolio nel mondo.
L'estrazione di petrolio è generalmente più costosa negli Stati Uniti che in Arabia Saudita, per cui i prezzi del petrolio più bassi hanno costretto un ridimensionamento negli Stati Uniti. Bloomberg riferisce:
Il calo della produzione negli Stati Uniti è avvenuto in concomitanza col calo del numero di impianti di perforazione di petrolio e gas, essi hanno raggiunto un minimo record di 404 il 20 maggio scorso, secondo i dati rilasciati da Baker Hughes Inc. Sin da allora questo numero ha recuperato, arrivando il 9 settembre a 508.
La produzione globale, tuttavia, non è crollata come molti avevano previsto, il che significa che la domanda non supera l'offerta, andando quindi ad aumentare i prezzi.
La domanda di petrolio non cresce come previsto
Matthew Parry dell'AIE ha osservato su Bloomberg che la domanda globale di petrolio non è quella che si ci aspettava. Influenzata da Cina, India ed Europa, la domanda inaspettatamente debole ha fatto in modo che l'AIE "correggesse il tiro".
Anche gli Stati Uniti devono affrontare difficoltà legate alla domanda. Sul fronte interno, i prezzi delle case continuano a salire, limitando il reddito disponibile per molte famiglie che poi si ritrovano a spendere di meno per la benzina. Nel frattempo, i redditi mediani negli Stati Uniti sono rimasti stagnanti negli ultimi dieci anni, e la partecipazione della forza lavoro è ancora in prossimità di un minimo da 30 anni a questa parte. Niente di tutto questo fa ben sperare per una crescita della domanda.
E, naturalmente, la domanda negli Stati Uniti è stata influenzata dai prezzi del petrolio in discesa man mano che diminuivano gli impianti petroliferi e scompariva l'occupazione in tal settore. Nello stato del Colorado in cui c'è stato un boom del petrolio, per esempio, a maggio il numero degli impianti petroliferi è sceso ad un minimo da 16 anni a questa parte, anche se hanno recuperato un po' sin da allora. Ma quando guardiamo all'occupazione a Greeley, Colorado — il centro del boom petrolifero — scopriamo che sin dal 2014 non ci sono stati incrementi netti nell'occupazione. Quando moltiplichiamo questo fenomeno attraverso altri stati toccati dal boom dell'olio di scisto, tra cui il Texas e il North Dakota, scopriamo un impatto reale in termini di guadagni e in tal modo una domanda poco brillante per tutti i beni e servizi, compresi i prodotti a base di olio di scisto.
In parole povere: nel futuro prossimo non sembra esserci un serbatoio segreto pieno di domanda che possa far salire i prezzi del petrolio.
I tassi d'interesse bassi stanno puntellando i prezzi del petrolio?
Un altro fattore che potrebbe destare preoccupazioni è ciò che Liam Denning ha definito "mercato del petrolio temporaneo" reso possibile dai tassi d'interesse ai minimi storici. Denning suppone che uno degli effetti della politica dei tassi d'interesse a zero, è stato quello di rendere più facile sedersi sulle scorte di petrolio. Scrivendo a marzo di quest'anno, Denning ha detto:
In primo luogo, il finanziamento a basso costo sta contribuendo a mantenere gonfie le scorte di petrolio. Il rapporto settimanale di mercoledì dell'Energy Information Administration ha dimostrato, ancora una volta, che le scorte sono molto al di sopra dei livelli normali.
Grazie ai prestiti ultra-economici, i carry trade hanno mantenuto il petrolio fuori dal mercato e nei depositi, portando ad ulteriori discese dei prezzi.
In secondo luogo, i creditori possono perseguire una strategia palliativo ed evitare di entrare in possesso di una merce che diminuisce di valore:
Mentre le banche devono ritirare le linee di credito da produttori di petrolio in difficoltà, sono senza dubbio restie a prendere possesso di contratti di locazione ed impianti petroliferi in bancarotta, rimandando il giorno della resa dei conti.
Un terzo problema sorge dal fatto che una volta che i tassi d'interesse cominceranno a salire, la domanda per il petrolio nel mondo in via di sviluppo potrebbe scendere ulteriormente, innescando un nuovo calo nei prezzi del petrolio:
L'esplosione del debito nei mercati emergenti, in particolare quando denominato in dollari statunitensi, è una bomba ad orologeria per l'economia globale. Quando i tassi inizieranno ad aumentare, portandosi dietro il valore del dollaro, si intensificherà la pressione sulle compagnie petrolifere e su tutti i mutuatari nei mercati in via di sviluppo. E si dà il caso che il mondo in via di sviluppo rappresenta tutta la crescita prevista nella domanda di petrolio nei prossimi cinque anni, in base ai numeri dell'AIE.
I prezzi del petrolio continuano a puntare verso la mediocrità nella nostra attuale "ripresa" economica. I prezzi del petrolio non sono in caduta libera, né i fondamentali puntano verso un aumento della domanda. Senza crescita della ricchezza reale e dei redditi reali, non c'è motivo di supporre che la domanda sarà sufficiente a superare la produzione attuale.
Come per il mercato azionario, i prezzi del petrolio sono diventati sempre più sensibili alle future azioni della banca centrale. Con Janet Yellen e la FED che ancora una volta lasciano intendere un probabile aumento dei tassi, stiamo vivendo qualcosa di simile a quello che abbiamo visto con il Dow Jones nella seconda metà del 2015. I prezzi stagnano o diminuiscono mentre tutti aspettano di vedere se la FED avrà il coraggio di lasciar salire i tassi. Se lo farà, potremmo assistere all'ennesimo episodio di un rapido calo della domanda.
Questo secondo grafico mostra un arco di tempo più breve per quanto riguarda il prezzo del petrolio in modo da inquadrare più dettagli. In dollari del 2015.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: http://francescosimoncelli.blogspot.it/
 I prezzi in discesa del petrolio possono far diminuire la domanda in molti paesi in via di sviluppo. Il Wall Street Journal ora riferisce che la Nigeria è in recessione per la prima volta sin dal 2004.
La grande necessità di avere denaro liquido immediato da parte dei Paesi in crisi è planetariamente risaputa. I Governi e le Istituzioni provano continuamente ad attenuare queste necessità, ma, come tutti sappiamo, è un arduo compito e allora che fare? Oggi la BCE (essendo l’unica che può stampare moneta per i Paesi dell’UE) ha in essere una manovra di alleggerimento del peso del debito degli Stati e cerca, affannosamente, di aiutare il sistema bancario a non collassare. Proviamo allora a pensare di aggirare l’ostacolo chiedendo alla BCE di poterla “utilizzare” per fare fronte a questa prolungata emergenza. Come? Proviamo a chiederle di poter emettere dei titoli irredimibili inserendoli nel Q.E. e remunerarli con un +3% rispetto al tasso di riferimento. Proviamo ad immaginare un importo di 100, 200, 300 … miliardi di euro, pagando il solo interesse. Il giovamento sarebbe immediato e, indubbiamente, metterebbe abbastanza in sicurezza le necessità di uno Stato. Ne gioverebbe molto anche il rapporto PIL/DEBITO PUBBLICO e scontando, eventualmente, anche il ricorso al FONDO di REDENZIONE, vera spada di Damocle per tutti i Governi Europei. Oppure, per quanto concerne l’Italia, si può istituire una patrimoniale del 10% (nulla osta percentuali diverse) facendola ricadere su tutti i possessori di titoli di Stato togliendo, immantinente, dal Grande Libro del Debito, circa 220 miliardi. E ancora, possiamo traslare ai fondi d’investimento, ai fondi pensione, ecc., i titoli irredimibili, poiché il loro obiettivo non è il breve, ma il lungo o lunghissimo termine, magari remunerandoli come sopra. Il prestito del Littorio è del 1926, quindi ha 90 anni ed oggi, se ne scriviamo o ne parliamo ancora, vuol dire che siamo punto e a capo. Anni fa ebbi a proporre anche il NO TIME DRAWING BOND, l’idea mi era venuta per rifinanziare imprese, banche ecc., (una specie di titoli irredimibili, numerati per l’estrazione e rimborsabili mano a mano che una impresa, banca ed ora anche per uno Stato ha la disponibilità di restituzione, rendendo di fatto appetibile la loro sottoscrizione) quindi, una possibilità in più di accedere al mercato. Ovviamente, se utilizzati questi strumenti, è necessario che vengano fatti controlli adeguati perché poi, i risultati non siano dispersi in inutilità. Proviamo?
What just happened (Friday) tells us much about what Trump must do on Monday.
Thirty thousand people just lost their jobs – as opposed to the not one person actually harmed by VW’s “cheating” on the government’s emissions tests.
The jobs go away because VW’s profits have.
In order to pay the government (and shyster lawyers), the company can’t afford to pay wages to those 30,000 people.
So, they’ve been pink slipped.
This is just one – very real – measure of the human costs of an out-of-control regulatory apparat that imposes these costs on the basis of speculative or hysterically over-exaggerated risks.
Like the tiresome cry of “racism!” to shut up legitimate hand-raising about certain increasingly indefensible policies based on an era that’s now at least 50 years in the rearview, this “cheating” business falls apart when examined at all closely.
Which is precisely why (like “racism”) it isn’t examined closely.
Disliking Obama (and Obama’s unctuous yes-we-can socialism) doesn’t mean one dislikes blacks. Or that failing to vote for his anointed replacement as GenSec is clear evidence of vagina phobia. But it must be presented in these terms, because of the thing itself – socialism, honestly presented – cannot be defended.
Just like the EPA’s emissions tests.
It is no longer about “clean air” – the mantra that, like “racism,” is beginning to lose its power.
Or, will – as people begin to realize the extent of the con.
And of the damage.
What VW did was encode some software that resulted – under some driving conditions – in a fractional increase in the emissions of something called oxides of nitrogen (NOx), a genuinely harmful compound… in large quantities.
And therein lies the rub.
The quantities at issue are very, very tiny. Almost unmeasurable. Literally. As in fractions of a percent. On the order of .03 vs. .02 (and that only under certain conditions, such as wide open throttle operation). This is the difference between “clean” – as defined by the EPA Ayatollahs – and “dirty.”
And – unlike the EPA’ s hysterical pronouncements and the media’s parroting of same – isn’t an exaggeration.
Here’s another way to get a handle on things:
The cars that VW is being crucified over – which has resulted in 30,000 people losing their livelihoods – would have qualified as “clean” under the EPA Ayatollahs’ prior and recent standards. The ones in effect circa the model year 2000.
Were the model year 2000 cars planet-fouling filth-spewers?
Find one. Stand behind it with the engine running. See for yourself.
Notice that EPA has not produced anyone actually harmed by VW’s “cheating.” None such exist. We are talking about a confected crisis, a manufactured problem.
The air is clean. Because cars are and have been for decades. The “clean air” problem stopped being one circa the late 1980s. By the mid-1990s, all new cars came from the factory with fuel injected, computer-controlled engines and “three-way” catalytic converter exhaust scrubbers. The stuff that was coming out of the tailpipe circa 1970 – which was a clean air problem – had by the mid-1990s become a no-longer-problem.
More than 95 percent of the Bad Stuff had by then been purged or contained or rendered harmless. Since then, EPA has been pursuing (Inspector Javert-like) the fractional remainder, at an ever-increasing cost.
But here’s the rub: Combustion will necessarily produce some emissions no matter what technology is applied. The question – both economic and practical – is, simply, at what point do we declare victory and go home?
If it is a zero emissions car, this will never happen unless we go over to electric cars exclusively – and even these still produce emissions, just indirectly.
But shouldn’t a nearly zero-emissions car be enough? 97.2 percent “clean”… vs. 97.5 percent “clean”?
Hailing 2016 the year of ‘two big political revolutions’ Nigel Farage said Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are ‘in denial’ over the public’s rejection of the political establishment.
Speaking on Fox News, the UKIP leader said Obama and the German Chancellor ‘simply can’t face up to the fact that their worldview has taken an absolute beating in the year of 2016′.
He has taken to social media to call 2016 ‘the year of political revolution’ and the ‘underdog’ with the Brexit vote in the UK and the election of Donald Trump in America.
The politician tweeted: ‘First Brexit, continued with Donald Trump’s win, more to come!’
The UKIP politician was speaking ahead of the election in Austria, as the latest polls show the anti-EU Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer is ahead of his Independent rival Alexander Van der Bellen in the May election.
Mr Farage told Fox News: ‘The poor darlings are in denial.
‘They simply can’t face up to the fact that their worldview has taken an absolute beating in the year of 2016.
‘It began with Brexit, the first brick out of the wall and now we have a Trump presidency in the USA.’
NEW YORK—The only thing worse than a sore loser, I suppose, is a sore winner, but thank God we don’t run into too many of those. Thirty years ago The Spectator and I lost a libel case that cost the then proprietor and yours truly a small fortune, and as it turned out after the plaintiff had gone to that sauna-like place below, everything that I had written was the truth and nothing but. (The hubby of the woman who sued me came clean after her death, but a lot of good that did the Speccie and myself.)
The sainted editor at the time was Charles Moore, and in view of Justice Otton having taken a great dislike to yours truly, he ordered me to remain at home when the decision was about to be pronounced. Nevertheless, a few hacks parked themselves on my front door and demanded a statement. I asked them if they could find out the name of the German pilot who mistakenly bombed the Temple in 1942 and killed a hell of a lot of lawyers. “I would like to name my next son after him.”
Sportsmen used to not be sore losers, nor excuse makers. By sportsmen, I mean the old amateur type of athlete of both sexes. My father used to go crazy when someone made excuses after losing a contest. Old dad was a wonderful 800-meter runner back in the days when track-and-field athletes ran for the glory of it, and the sport had not as yet become drug central. He told me about a friend of his who, having lost badly when running the marathon, said the reason he lost was because the winner had jumped the gun.
Donations to the Clinton Foundation plummeted amid Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential run, it has been revealed.
The non-profit organization’s latest tax filings show contributions fell 37 per cent to $108million – down from $172million in 2014, according to the New York Post.
Donations fell as the former Secretary of State left the group in April last year shortly after announcing her run for the White House.
Her departure also meant that revenue brought in from paid speeches plunged from $3.6million in 2014 to just $357,500.
The foundation became an issue during the presidential campaign when Donald Trump pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate it amid pay-to-play allegations.
Trump called the foundation ‘the most corrupt enterprise in political history’ adding, ‘It must be shut down immediately.’
It’s not known whether Trump will keep his promise as he has since backed down in a recent interview on his vow to investigate Clinton again for her use of a private email server, calling the Clintons ‘good people.’
But Rep. Jason Chaffetz, head of the House Oversight Committee, has suggested that the investigation into the foundation will continue.
Last year, Charity Navigator placed the foundation on its watchlist, a feature it added in 2014.
In the Clinton Foundation’s case, the watchdog cited multiple concerns, including news reports about the foundation accepting donations from foreign governments.
It had voluntarily sworn off that practice while Clinton led the State Department, but the donations started again when she left her post.