How Faux Capitalism Works In America

Authored by EconomicPrism’s MN Gordon, annotated by Acting-Man’s Pater Tenebrarum,

Stars in the Night Sky

The U.S. stock market’s recent zigs and zags have provoked much squawking and screeching.  Wall Street pros, private money managers, and Millennial index fund enthusiasts all find themselves on the wrong side of the market’s swift movements.  Even the best and brightest can’t escape President Trump’s tweet precipitated short squeezes.

The Donald mercilessly hits the shorts with a well-timed tweet. But as it turns out, this market is in a really bad mood at the moment. [PT]

The short-term significance of the DJIA’s 8 percent decline since early-October is uncertain.  For all we know, stocks could run up through the end of the year.  Stranger things have happened.

What is also uncertain is the nature of this purge: Is this another soft decline like that of mid-2015 to early-2016, when the DJIA fell 12 percent before quickly resuming its uptrend?  Or is this the start of a brutal bear market – the kind that wipes out portfolios and blows up investment funds?

The stars in the night sky tell us this is the latter.  For example, when peering out into the night sky even the most untrained eye can identify the three ominous stars that are lining up with mechanical precision.

These stars include a stock market top, followed by a monster corporate debt buildup, and a fading economy.  In short, the stock market’s latest break is presaging a corporate credit crisis and global recession.

BofA/Merrill Lynch US high yield Master II Index yield – this looks like a quite convincing breakout, impossible to tweet down. In other words, the corporate debt build-up is beginning to bite back – and rather bigly, if we may say so (ed note, in case you’re wondering: the little poems are from a Spectator competition in which people used phrases from actual tweets to put together Donald haikus and poems). [PT]

The last time these three stars aligned in this sequence was roughly a decade ago.  If you recall, that was when the DJIA crashed 50 percent coincident with a mega credit crisis and recession.  We suspect that the disaster that’s approaching will be much larger, and much more destructive than the disaster of a decade ago.

Bad Habit

Astute readers will be quick to point out that government debt was not identified as one of the three ominous stars lining up in the night sky.  This is not an oversight.  Rather, it is an insight.

Without question, government debt has burgeoned way beyond what even the most doom and gloom pessimists could have envisioned just a decade ago.  In fact, November marked the widest one month budget deficit in U.S. history.

Over a one month period – a month with just 30 days, not 31 – the U.S. government spent $411 billion while it only received $206 billion.  By our rough back of the napkin calculation, the U.S. government spent nearly double what it took in.  That difference, of course, was made up with debt.  Roughly, $6.83 billion of new debt was added each and every day.

At best, spending more than one makes, like smoking or swearing, is a bad habit.  However, spending more than one makes with no intention to pay it back is a moral failing.  What’s more, running up untenable levels of government debt with the implied intent of inflating it away at the expense of the citizenry is downright evil.

It’s definitely a tremendous pile of debt… and the slope of the mountain has steepened quite dramatically in recent years…  [PT]

Day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, the U.S. government has racked up close to $22 trillion in debt.  Throw in unfunded liabilities of social security, Medicare (Parts A, B, and D), federal debt held by the public, and federal employee and veteran benefits, and the U.S. government’s on the hook for over $115.8 trillion in debt – or nearly $1 million per taxpayer.  How about that?

Of course, as the population ages, and the ratio of workers to retirees balances, these debt figures will go vertical.  As you can see, government debt is more than just an ominous star.  It’s the essential star.  Moreover, it is a dying star on the verge of collapse.  Quite frankly, it may not have enough energy to backstop the financial system during the next downturn.  Here’s why…

How Faux Capitalism Works in America

Our guess is that the real squawking from investors won’t begin until mid-2019.  That’s about the time corporate America becomes acutely aware that pumping gobs of borrowed money into grossly overvalued stocks was an act of financial suicide.

Just look to General Electric, IBM, and Citigroup for an early indication of the forthcoming catastrophe.  For instance, over the last decade GE spent $46 billion buying back its shares.  In 2016 and 2017 alone, at a time of mushrooming debt, GE pumped $24 billion into share buybacks.

GE wasted $46 billion on buying back its shares – with nothing to show for it except a collapsing share price. This was an astonishing misallocation of capital – very likely the company will eventually have issue new shares  to prop up its equity, at prices far below the prices it paid for buying them back. [PT]

Over this time, the price of these shares dropped from about $30 to $16.  And even with Thursday’s 7.3 percent boost, on word of a surprise JPMorgan upgrade, GE shares trade at $7.20.  In other words, shares GE bought back during the early part of 2016 have lost 75 percent of their value.  What to make of it?

The 2008 financial crisis helped clarify how faux capitalism works in America.  That when the big corporations and the big banks get in trouble, the people on top quickly absolve culpability while appropriating public funds from their friends at the Treasury for the purpose of private bailouts. This, in effect, socializes the losses across bottom rungs of society and concentrates profits across the top.

No doubt, the aftermath of the great corporate stock buyback craze of 2009 to 2017 will be a text book example of faux capitalism in action.  First, massive financial bailouts will be disseminated to crony banks and corporations with purpose and intent.  Then, a colossal river of monetary liquidity from the Fed will be diverted into credit markets, and into direct stock purchases of government preferred corporations.

Bailout progression – it continues until it cannot continue anymore, i.e., until the “running out of other people’s money” moment arrives. [PT]

The size and scope of these fiscal and monetary bailouts will utterly dwarf the TARP, ZIRP, and QE policies of the last crisis.  Assuming this doesn’t blow up the Treasury’s balance sheet, or vaporize what’s left of the dollar’s value, a certain end effect will take shape.  The middle class will be reduced to a notch or two above poverty, and wealth will be further concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

We don’t like it.  We don’t agree with it.  But we can’t stop it.  This is the world we live in.  A world where justice has been debased and rectitude has been sullied.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2GklyWy Tyler Durden

Paris Protests Turn Violent Again As Police Use Riot Measures On Yellow Vests 

Week five of Yellow Vest demonstrations turned violent after protesters in Paris began to scuffle with police. 

Just under 70,000 police have been mobilized across France in an effort to contain some 33,500 estimated protesters – a much lower turnout than in previous weeks, while the Yellow Vest movement itself has spread to several countries across Europe, as well as Iraq, Israel and even Canada. 

Less than 3,000 protesters descended on Paris so far on Saturday, compared to 8,000 or so last week. Of those, 114 people had been detained in the capital – around 20% of last week’s figure. 

Police used tear gas and pepper spray on protesters in the center of Paris on Saturday. One person was reportedly hurt in the head during clashes at Champs-Élysées. A correspondent with Russian state-owned media outlet RT suffered an injury to the face and was taken to the hospital. 

Seven people in total have died during the Yellow Vest demonstrations, which has gone from a fuel tax protest to an anti-government movement.

“Last time, we were here for taxes,” said 28-year-old called Jeremy told the AFP news agency.

“This is for the institutions – we want more direct democracy,” he said, adding that people needed to “shout to make themselves heard”.

Some museums are closed, but both the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower remain open.

In Calais, a group of “yellow vests” blocked the access road to the port. –BBC

Meanwhile, an Anonymous Sith yellow vest brought his double-lightsaber: 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Em8YDw Tyler Durden

Leaked Memo Touts UK-Funded Firm’s Ability To Create “Untraceable” News Sites For “Infowar Campaign”

The hacking collective known as “Anonymous” has published more explosive documents detailing a UK-based psyop to create a “large-scale information secret service” in Europe in order to combat “Russian propaganda”  which has been blamed for everything from Brexit to Trump winning the 2016 US election to this month’s anti-Macron “Yellow Vest” protests.

We previously detailed the first trove of documents which were dumped online November 5th to the site Cyberguerilla, revealing the private UK organization with deep government ties, the Integrity Initiative, to be engaged in an aggressive campaign to organize “clusters” of journalists across the West engaged in “counter-propaganda” efforts on social media networks and in media. And now a new trove of leaked Integrity Initiative documents has been dumped online Friday.

“Combatting Russian Disinformation” – Screenshot from a bombshell newly leaked document published Friday and hosted on the Cyberguerilla site.

This week the Integrity Initiative and its founding parent organization, the Institute for Statecraft — which is known for its close relationship with the UK military and defense officials — is at the center of debate in the House of Commons over its anti-Corbyn and anti-Labour smears involving labeling party leader Jeremy Corbyn a “useful idiot” for Moscow, even while the company is a recipient of official Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) funding

The early November online leaks of confidential Integrity Initiative documents were the first to reveal the UK government’s relationship to the private project devoted to “fighting Russian disinformation”. According to The Guardian:

FCO funding of the Integrity Initiative was revealed by a set of stolen documents posted online last month by hackers under the banner of the Anonymous hacktivist collective. The organisation has not disputed their authenticity, but in a statement suggested that Russia was responsible for the hack and that Moscow had used its media channels to amplify its impact.

We noted previously that the work done by the Initiative  which claims it is not affiliated with government bodies, is done under “absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies,” according to memos in the November leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British “government agencies.” 

Friday’s document dump via “Anonymous” is the third such release, and already some bombshell information has come to light.

The geopolitical blog, Moon of Alabama, was the first to unearth and analyze one of the more interesting among the document trove:

A “strictly confidential” proposal by the French company Lexfo to spread the Integrity Initiative’s state-sponsored propaganda through an offensive online influence campaigns for a monthly pay per language of €20-40.000. The proposal also includes an offer for “counter activism” through “negative PR, legal actions, ethical hack back, etc.” for €50,000 per month.

The document is marked “Strictly confidential” and lays out a “comprehensive action proposal” which repeatedly invokes Russian state funded media outlets RT and Sputnik as enemy disinformation to be defeated.

The proposal touts the ability of an Integrity Initiative partner  the French cybersecurity firm Lexfo — to create “indirect” and “untraceable” news content, including its ability to conduct “naming and shaming” campaigns targeting “allies” of “Russian disinformation”.

Presumably “allies” means any person or entity that happens to align with the Russian viewpoint on any given issue. The shaming campaigns and counter-information operations will be conducted “across hundreds of credible media outlets”.

Alarmingly, the document notes that:

 “where we lack platforms to publish our content… we will create news media sites serving our objectives…”

Again, both the contracting cybersecurity firm and the Integrity Initiative’s role in literally creating media sites out of thin air for the purpose of “serving our objectives” will remain “untraceable”.

As part of the “infowar campaign” teams of media operatives across Europe and the U.S. will “monitor” and edit social media pages as well as Wikipedia entries, according to the leaked document.  

“Hot topics” which especially need to be monitored include the Ukraine conflict and any situation wherein “pro-Western local politicians” could be swayed by “Russian-backed trolls”

The teams will engage in “special operations” which are listed as:

  • negative PR
  • legal actions
  • ethical hack back 

And which populations are to be targeted? The document specifically mentions seeking out a Russian audience alongside Western countries: “This plan should be implemented in every targeted country and language, including Russia.”

These “influence operations” come at a price, according to the document. One figure which is floated is a monthly pay per language fee of €20-40.000, making it classic government subsidized mass propaganda (again, the company has been confirmed as receiving FCO funding).

Given that this looks like merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of similar such UK and US funded “combating disinformation” projects conducted in partnership with private entities out there, these initiatives have most likely already been active for years

via RSS https://ift.tt/2SNsQU1 Tyler Durden

Interior Secretary Zinke Stepping Down Amid Ethics Inquiry

Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke – who rode a horse to the Department of the Interior on his first day of work – has notified the White House he intends to step down amid an ethics investigation by the Interior Department’s inspector general into his travel, political activity and potential conflicts of interest, Bloomberg reported on Saturday morning with the president confirming the departure by tweet moments later.

News of Zinke’s departure comes as Democrats, who are about to take control of the House of Representatives, have vowed to grill the him over his conduct raising the prospect of heightened oversight – and a flood of legal bills from defending himself. According to Bloomberg, concern about all the scrutiny and legal costs on the horizon were factors in Zinke’s decision to quit.

Zinke’s impending departure also emerges as President Donald Trump grapples with other changes to his Cabinet that underscore the challenges of filling vacancies in a tumultuous administration.

On Friday, Trump announced that budget director Mick Mulvaney would take over as chief of staff, replacing John Kelly, whose ouster on Dec. 8 touched off a roller-coaster search to fill the key White House post.

The Interior Department’s inspector general had initiated at least seven investigations directly targeting Zinke. A separate independent federal investigative agency also has opened as many as six other inquiries into allegations Zinke engaged in improper political activity – a volume that invited comparisons to the ousted Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt.

Trump’s been aware of Zinke’s plans for several days, and a search for a replacement is under way with Zinke’s replacement expected to be announced next week.

Zinke had championed using federal lands to pursue U.S. “energy dominance,” and that agenda will be continued by his likely successor as acting Interior Secretary: David Bernhardt, the agency’s No. 2 official. As deputy he’s played a key, behind-the-scenes role in shaping the department’s policies, according to Bloomberg.

Other potential contenders for the post include Cynthia Lummis, a former congresswoman from Wyoming; Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes; Adam Laxalt, the Nevada attorney general who lost his bid to be governor ; Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter; former Nevada Senator Dean Heller, who lost his re-election bid in November; and outgoing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. The role is typically filled by Western politicians who have experience navigating the vast federal lands.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Gkv5Ne Tyler Durden

The Bank Of England And The Manipulation Of Sterling

Authored by Steven Guinness,

In a recent article where I discussed the Bank of England being at the heart of the Brexit process, I mentioned how the fall in the value of sterling following the 2016 referendum was pigeonholed by the bank as being the sole cause for inflation breaching their 2% target.

After the article was re-posted by Zero Hedge, a reader commented on something I did not make specific mention of, which was that six weeks after the referendum the BOE halved interest rates to 0.25%, prompting the pound to drop further in value. The reader pointed out that cutting interest rates usually results in currencies depreciating, and that the bank’s actions were the cause of a subsequent rise in inflation and not Brexit itself. Essentially, the premise here is that the BOE were responsible for devaluing the pound and creating the conditions to eventually raise interest rates a year later.

A similar comment from another reader in October last year spoke of how the BOE extending quantitative easing by £60 billion, as well as lowering rates, were ‘two sure fire things to lower the value of the pound.’

Whilst I have touched upon this in previous articles, it is a subject that deserves more attention and fresh context.

Let’s start by first going back to December 2007 when the Bank of England cut interest rates from 5.75% to 5.5%. At the time sterling was valued at $1.96. Two more rate cuts followed in February and April 2008, taking rates down to 5%. The pound remained stable around $1.97. So far the bank lowering rates had not prompted a fall in sterling.

Five months later Lehman Brothers collapsed, and so began a violent downward trend in interest rates. The next cut came in October, down to 4.5%. The chaos within financial markets had fed through to sterling – the $1.97 from five months ago was now $1.72. The BOE moved fast to keep cutting rates under the pretext of ensuring the financial system did not collapse. They trimmed rates in November to 3%, December to 2%, January 2009 to 1.5%, February to 1%, and finally in March to 0.5%.

In the space of fifteen months, rates had fallen by 5%. By the time the March cut was administered, the pound was at $1.41. For the rest of 2009, sterling traded between $1.50 and $1.70 – significantly below the high of $2.00 set on July 23rd 2008.

It should be pointed out that as the BOE were cutting rates, inflation was consistently above the bank’s 2% target for inflation. In the subsequent years following the cuts – notably from late to 2009 to late 2013 – inflation was again above remit. It reached a high of 5.1% in 2011. During this period, the high point for sterling was $1.70 set in August 2009. It otherwise traded between the $1.40 and $1.60 handle.

It was nine months after the last rate cut in March 2009 that inflation began a four year period of being over target. During this time the value of sterling rose, but remained far below pre financial crisis highs.

There is a correlation here of aggressive rate cuts eventually translating into a higher rate of inflation.

Next, let’s go back to the start of November 2015, when sterling was valued at $1.54. Steadily it began to fall as 2016 – the year of the referendum – approached. By the end of December it was $1.47. After falling to $1.38 at the end of February 2016 (a fall that was blamed on ‘Brexit related uncertainty‘), it then fluctuated in the $1.40 range up until the day of the vote.

On June 23rd – the day of the vote – sterling stood at $1.48. It’s value plummeted once the result of the referendum was confirmed. $1.48 became $1.36 in less than twenty four hours, a drop of over 8%. The pound remained highly volatile in the build up to the Monetary Policy Committee meeting at the Bank of England on August 4th (touching a low of $1.28 on July 11th).

After the day the bank lowered interest rates and pumped an extra £60 billion of new money into the financial system, sterling fell 1.65% to $1.31. Two months later, on October 11th, it was down to $1.20. It remained in the $1.20 range until May 18th, 2017.

Here we begin to see a correlation between the Bank of England’s actions and a further sustained fall in the value of the pound. As sterling traded in the $1.20s, inflation broke past the 2% target. A year after the 2016 rate cut and expansion of QE, inflation had risen by over 1.5%.

It was in September 2017, with inflation edging closer to 3%, that the Bank of England began telegraphing an imminent rise in interest rates. Sterling rebounded, touching $1.36 on September 18th. On November 2nd, the bank raised rates for the first time in a decade. Sterling was now firmly back in the $1.30 range, and broke past $1.40 on January 23rd 2018.

On April 17th, its value had reached a post referendum high of $1.43. It was here when BOE governor Mark Carney played down expectations of a interest rate hike in May. Sterling fell back below $1.40 and has so far not returned to this level. When the bank did raise rates in August, the pound remained weak following the BOE’s continued guidance that future rates would likely only be ‘gradual’ and to a ‘limited extent.’

Following the August rise, sterling fell back into the $1.20 range and has since been fluctuating between $1.26 and $1.32, with volatility being blamed on ‘Brexit related uncertainty‘ by the both the Bank of England and the financial press.

We have a situation now where despite the BOE having raised interest rates twice in twelve months, the value of sterling remains depressed. Whilst the media scapegoat the political uncertainty around Brexit as the cause of this, they have failed to recognise a wider trend at play. Communications from the Bank of England, and the words of its governor, Mark Carney, have had a direct impact on the pound. Managing expectations on the path of interest rates, along with stoking up the possibility of a ‘no deal‘ Brexit, has served to keep the currency volatile for an extended period of time.

What is interesting is that the bank’s communications have been reporting for a number of months that the effects of sterling’s 2016 depreciation on inflation are now subsiding. It is through the devaluation of the pound that the BOE have justified tightening monetary policy.

After the high of $1.43 in April, the pound quickly dropped below $1.40 following Mark Carney’s intervention that rates would not be rising in May 2018. Sterling has been below $1.40 ever since. The current price of $1.26 is over 11% down on the April high.

It is a gross over simplification to adjudge volatility in sterling as being solely based on the latest round of political theatre. The Bank of England have proven themselves highly capable of manipulating the trajectory of the pound based on their own communications.

As Britain moves nearer to leaving the EU – possibly under World Trade Organisation terms – the behaviour of sterling could once again have a significant impact on the rate of inflation. In the worst case ‘no deal‘ scenario, the BOE are signalling that the pound may drop as low as $1 – parity with the dollar. A consequence of that, according to the bank, would be inflation rising to over 6%. Prime conditions to carry on raising interest rates.

As discussed before, the global trend throughout the west is for monetary tightening, and to justify this by citing ‘inflationary pressures‘. Those keeping abreast of Brexit developments should not simply be paying attention to the political side, but also the economic ramifications. The longer sterling is devalued, the greater the likelihood of a resurgence in inflation and the rising cost of borrowing.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2S2JJdD Tyler Durden

Are Dollar Stores Really Driving Grocers Out of Business? New at Reason

Earlier this month, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), a nonprofit advocacy group that “challenges concentrated economic and political power, and instead champions an approach in which ownership is broadly distributed, institutions are humanly scaled, and decision-making is accountable to communities,” released research meant to push back against the spread of dollar stores, which the group argues are “targeting struggling urban neighborhoods and small towns.”

Generally, dollar stores are mid-sized retails stores that sell “a wide range of inexpensive household goods.”

The ILSR research focuses largely on the sale of what it deems substandard groceries by dollar stores, criticizes their spread as the cause and effect of economic malaise, and urges cities and towns “to check the[] spread” of dollar stores through local legislation. Steps the ILSR urges cities and towns to take include setting limits on chains, creating buffer zones around existing stores (of the sort food trucks have often endured in many cities), increasing red tape, and subsidizing locally owned groceries.

But the research makes several assumptions that don’t stand up to scrutiny, writes Baylen Linnekin.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2BkQQab
via IFTTT

European Auto Registrations Plunge Third Month In A Row, Down 8.1% In November

Automakers in Europe saw new car registrations plummet an ominous 8.1% in November according to ACEA data provided by Bloomberg. This is now the third month in a row that registrations have declined, as the overseas market – already in a precarious position – shows yet another indication of continuing weakness into 2019.

Shares of automakers fell overnight after the November numbers hit the wire. The decline in November helped drag down year to date growth to just 0.6% in the European Union in the European Free Trade Association area.

This downturn earlier this year began with the introduction of new emission standards across Europe. EY Consultancy had previously predicted that levels would pick up toward the end of the year this year, but now partner Peter Fuss believes that December is going to be negative also. He notes the fewer shopping days in the month as a convenient excuse for the tanking numbers.

If December comes in similar to November, it could throw all of 2018 into negative territory. In order to keep pace with 2017, automakers would need to sell 1.05 million cars this month. If December registrations drop more than 8% – as the November ones did – the 1 million car mark will be impossible to hit.

Contributing to the ugly numbers are the United Kingdom and Italy, two areas currently in the midst of both economic and political unrest. Both of these geographies fell in November, but Germany took the cake: down 9.9% for the month.

And 2019 isn’t shaping up to be a great year, either. BMW is already facing €1 billion in headwinds due to a slowing Chinese market and the Brexit chaos in the United Kingdom. The few potential signs of optimism for the coming year lie in whether or not a trade deal and a reduction of tariffs between China and the US is possible.

Three days ago we reported that China is planning to cut tariffs on US-made cars to 15% from the current 40%. China boosted tariffs on US-made cars to 40% as part of a raft of retaliatory measures against the US imposed over the summer.

While US automakers will undoubtedly benefit from the move, European automakers like Mercedes-Benz and BMW could be the biggest beneficiaries after both companies – which have sizable manufacturing operations in the US – warned about lower profits this year.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PEDn1K Tyler Durden

US Demands Europe Join Its War Against Russia

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

In recent decades, the US Constitution’s clause that requires a congressional declaration of war before invading any country, has been ignored. Furthermore, ever since 2012 and the passage by Congress of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, economic sanctions by the US Government have been imposed against any company that fails to comply with a US-imposed economic sanction; a company can even be fined over a billion dollars for violating a US economic sanction.

And, so, sanctions are now the way that the US Congress actually does authorize a war — the new way, no longer the way that’s described in the US Constitution. However, in the economic-sanctions phase of a war — this initial phase — the war is being imposed directly against any company that violates a US-ordered economic sanction, against Russia, Iran, or whatever target-country the US Congress has, by means of such sanctions, actually authorized a war by the US to exist — a ‘state of war’ to exist.

For the US Congress, the passage of economic sanctions against a country thus effectively serves now as an authorization for the US President to order the US military to invade that country, if and when the President decides to do so. No further congressional authorization is necessary (except under the US Constitution). This initial phase of a war penalizes only those other nations’ violating companies directly — not the target-country. Though the US Government punishes the violating corporation, the actual target is the targeted (sanctioned) country. Sanctions are being used to strangle that target. The fined companies are mere ‘collateral damage’, in this phase of America’s new warfare. In this phase, which is now the standard first phase of the US Government’s going-to-war, the US Government is coercing corporations to join America’s economic war, against the given targeted country — in this case, it’s a war against Russia; Russia is the country that the US Government wants to strangle, in this particular instance.

On Tuesday, 11 December, the US House of Representatives voted unanimously (no member objected), by voice vote — unrecorded so that nobody can subsequently be blamed for anything — that President Donald Trump should impose penalties, which could amount to billions of dollars, against any EU-based corporation that participates with Russia in Russia’s Nord Stream II Pipeline to supply gas to Europe.

This “Resolution,” H.Res.1035, is titled “Expressing opposition to the completion of Nord Stream II, and for other purposes,” and it closes by asserting that the US House of Representatives “supports the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord Stream II under section 232 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.”

With no member objecting, the US House thereby warns corporations to cease doing business with Russia, because the US Government is determined that any such business will be terminated and will maybe also be fined. The US Government imposes its will as if it were the dictator to the entire world, and without even needing to use its military, but just economic coercion.

The US Senate doesn’t yet have a similar bill, but the unanimous passage of this one in the House constitutes a strong warning to Europe’s corporations, that unless they obey the US sanctions, huge financial penalties will be imposed upon them. There are not many issues on which the US Congress is even nearly 100% united in agreement, but during this phase, the introductory phase, of America’s war against Russia, the war against Russia is certainly among those few instances — entirely bipartisan.

According to RT, on December 12th, headlining “US lawmakers want to put a cork in Russia’s gas pipeline to Europe”

“On Monday, Austria’s OMV energy group CEO Rayner Zele stated that the company is set to continue financing the pipeline next year. OMV has already invested some 531 million euros ($607 million) into the project, Zele told Ria Novosti. In early December, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also said that Berlin’s abandoning the project would not make sense as Russia will still go on with it. Germany earlier rebuked Trump’s criticism of the project after the US leader accused Berlin of being a ‘captive’ of Moscow citing Germany’s alleged dependency on natural gas from Russia.”

If the US Government fails to strangulate the economies in the countries such as Russia and Iran against which it has imposed sanctions, then the next step, of course, would be some type of armed invasion of the given targeted country. Before the US invaded Iraq in 2003, America’s economic sanctions killed from 100,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children, but then the US invaded and destroyed the country vastly more than just that.

Economic sanctions are an attempt to coerce a targeted country’s — in effect — surrender, but without needing to use a military invasion as the coercive means. Any sanctioned country is therefore in America’s bomb-sights, and will be conquered in one way or another, unless the US Government backs down, at some point.

According to the most extensive study that was ever done of US military bases worldwide, there are over a thousand such bases, and this is a huge multiple of all non-US military bases put together. That study was published in 1995. Many new US military bases have been built and manned since 1995, such as several dozen in just one country, Syria, where the sovereign Government has never invited them in and many times has ordered them to leave, but they refuse to leave. Currently, the US Government spends more than half of all monies that are being spent worldwide on the military.

Regarding the Nord Stream II Pipeline, the beneficiaries if that Pipeline is never completed and placed into service, will be American LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) producers, and also America’s allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. World War III could actually start as a result of the US Government’s serving America’s (and its allies’) fossil-fuels producers above all other concerns regarding not only global warming, but even world peace itself. Those are the interests that are, in effect, at war against the entire world. This is not a statement of opinion: it is established and well-demonstrated fact. It is the overwhelmingly documented reality.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PIQH5C Tyler Durden

The War Against Globalism

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

We are the Little Folk—we!

Too little to love or to hate.

Leave us alone and you’ll see

How we can drag down the State!

A Pict Song, Rudyard Kipling

Belgium has joined the list of countries that are rebelling against their elected leadership. Over the weekend the Belgian government fell over Prime Minister Charles Michel’s trip to Morocco to sign the United Nations Migration Agreement. The agreement made no distinction between legal and illegal migrants and regarded immigration as a positive phenomenon. The Belgian people apparently did not agree. Facebook registered 1,200 Belgians agreeing that the Prime Minister was a traitor. Some users expressed concern for their children’s futures, noting that Belgian democracy is dead. Others said they would get yellow vests and join the protests.

The unrest witnessed in a number of places is focused on some specific demands but it represents much broader anger. The French yellow vests initially protested against proposed increases in fuel taxes that would have affected working people dependent on transportation disproportionately. But when that demand was met by the government of President Emmanuel Macron, the demonstrations continued and even grew, suggesting that the grievances with the government were far more extensive than the issue of a single new tax. Perhaps not surprisingly, the French government is seeking for a scapegoat and is investigating “Russian interference.” The US State Department inevitably agrees, claiming that Kremlin directed websites and social media are “amplifying the conflict.”

Some commentators looking somewhat more deeply at the riots in France have even suggested that the real issue just might be regime change, that the Macron government had become so disconnected with many of the voters through both its policies and the rhetoric justifying them that it had lost its legitimacy and there was no possibility of redemption. Any change would have to be an improvement, particularly as a new regime would be particularly sensitive to the sentiments of those being governed, at least initially. One might suggest that the prevailing sentiment that a radical change in government is needed, come what may, to shake up the system might well be called the “Trump phenomenon” as that is more-or-less what happened in the United States.

The idea that republican or democratic government will eventually deteriorate into some form of tyranny is not exactly new. Thomas Jefferson advocated a new revolution every generation to keep the spirit of government accountable to the people alive.

Call it what you will – neoliberalism, neoconservatism or globalism – the new world order, as recently deceased President George H.W. Bush once labeled it, characteristically embraces a world community in which there is free trade, free movement of workers and democracy. They all sound like good things but they are authoritarian in nature, destructive of existing communities and social systems while at the same time enriching those who promote the changes. They have also been the root cause of most of the wars fought since the Second World War, wars to “liberate” people who never asked to be invaded or bombed as part of the process.

And there are, of course, major differences between neoliberals and neoconservatives in terms of how one brings about the universal nirvana, with the liberals embracing some kind of process whereby the transformation takes place because it represents what they see, perhaps cynically, as the moral high ground and is recognized as being the right thing to do. The neocons, however, seek to enforce what they define as international standards because the United States has the power to do so in a process that makes it and its allies impossible to challenge. The latter view is promoted under the phony slogan that “Democracies do not fight other democracies.”

The fact that globalists of every type consider nationalism a threat to their broader ambitions has meant that parochial or domestic interests are often disregarded or even rejected. With that in mind, and focusing on two issues – wholesale unwelcome immigration and corrupt government run by oligarchs – one might reasonably argue that large numbers of ordinary citizens now believe themselves to be both effectively disenfranchised and demonstrably poorer as rewarding work becomes harder to find and communities are destroyed through waves of both legal and illegal immigration.

In the United States, for example, most citizens now believe that the political system does not work at all while almost none think that even when it does work it operates for the well-being of all the citizens. For the first time since the Great Depression, Americans no longer think of upward mobility. Projections by sociologists and economists suggest that the current generation growing up in the United States will likely be materially poorer than their parents. That angst and the desire to “do something” to make government more responsive to voters’ interests is why Donald Trump was elected president.

What has been occurring in Belgium, France, with Brexit in Britain, in the recent election in Italy, and also in the warnings coming from Eastern Europe about immigration and European Union community economic policies are driven by the same concerns that operated in America. Government itself is becoming the enemy. And let us not forget the countries that have already felt the lash and been subjected to the social engineering of Angela Merkel – Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. All are weaker economies crushed by the one size fits all of the EURO, which eliminated the ability of some governments to manage their own economies. They and all their citizens are poorer for it.

There have been windows in history when the people have had enough abuse and so rise up in revolt. The American and French revolutions come to mind as does 1848. Perhaps we are experiencing something like that at the present time, a revolt against the pressure to conform to globalist values that have been embraced to their benefit by the elites and the establishment in much of the world. It could well become a hard fought and sometimes bloody conflict but its outcome will shape the next century. Will the people really have power in the increasingly globalized world or will it be the 1% with its government and media backing that emerges triumphant?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2BlKLdy Tyler Durden

Skyscraper Construction: Nobody Comes Close To China In 2018

With 143 buildings 200 meters tall (660 feet) or higher constructed across the globe, 2018 was another hugely impressive year for skyscraper construction.

As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, according to The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the total height of those buildings comes to 35,246 meters – exceeding the length of Manhattan Island if they were laid end-to-end.

China is at the forefront of the boom in skyscraper construction, building 88 in total this year.

Infographic: Skyscraper Construction: Nobody Comes Close To China In 2018 | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

The Citic Tower in Beijing was the tallest building completed anywhere in the world in 2018. At 528 meters tall (1,732 feet), with 108 floors above ground, it’s now the eighth-tallest building worldwide and the fourth the tallest in China. The second-tallest skyscraper of 2018 was the 469.5-meter-tall (1,540 feet) Vincom Landmark 81 in Ho Chi Minth City, Vietnam while another Chinese building comes third. The 452 meter high (1,483 feet) Changsha IFS Tower T1 was built in the city of Changsha.

After China, the U.S. comes a distant second in the 2018 skyscraper league with 13 completions while the UAE comes third with 10.

Due to China’s skyward ambitions, Asia is the global hub of skyscraper construction, accounting for 76.2 percent of all completions this year. North America had an 11.2 percent share of the total while the Middle East and Africa had 9.1 percent.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2A2tupP Tyler Durden