But if US banks are about to get hit, then European banks, which are already in purgatory courtesy of five years of negative rates coupled with both public and private QE, may enter the 9th circle of hell as soon as Thursday, when the ECB previews what may be a 20bps rate cut in September with or without more QE.
While the disastrous performance of European bank stocks since the financial crisis has been extensively discussed, with the European banking sector trading on the edge of support, beyond which nothing good awaits…
… it would be ironic if it is none other than the ECB which tips European bank stocks to new all time lows.
The reason for that is that, as Goldman recently calculated, further rate cuts are “a very uncomfortable prospect” for the
sector, and an indicative -20bps rate cut could lead to an aggregate €5.6bn (-6%) profit cut for the 32 Euro banks under Goldman coverage, with 12 banks facing an >10% EPS cut, and 5 banks >20%. Worse, if Draghi were “forced” to cut rates further still, by say -100bp, one quarter of European banks would turn loss making or break-even, and 75% would not meet their cost of capital, according to Goldman calculations.
First, we lay out a quick, 6-chart summary of what Goldman’s economists will take place in the coming months in Europe:
Next, below are the details from Goldman’s analysis on rate cut-associated hits to income and capital:
A decline in €-rates by -20bps across the yield curve, all else equal, has scope to lower NII and earnings of Euro area banks under our coverage by -3% and -6%, respectively. A profit hit of €5.6 bn would reduce ROTE for the 32 banks under our coverage by 0.6ppt to 8.2%. This said, for 12 banks the EPS impact, measured on a fully loaded pro-forma basis, could be >10%, and for 5 banks >20%. These are meaningful impacts.
Bank-by-bank rankings for banks under Goldman’s coverage are laid our below:
And the next chart shows the aggregate impact of a -20bps rate cut on European banks.
Furthermore, as noted above, incrementally larger cuts have scope to stress sector profitability further:
A -100bps cut would reduce sector’s aggregate ROTE by c. 3pp and, importantly, push ¼ of banks into loss making (4 banks) or break-even (4) territory. Returns for ¾ of all Euro area banks would fall <10% (ROTE), implying that only a handful of banks would be in a position to cover their COE. Deteriorating rate outlook is not a new phenomenon and in the past had already meaningfully impacted our profitability forecasts. We therefore overlay our bottom-up analysis with historical data on NII estimate revisions to substantiate the scale of potential revenue pressures. Notably, we had cut our 2016e aggregate NII estimates by >10% over 2014-16, at the time when both short-term policy (deposit rate: -40bps) and long-term market rates (5 year swap: -110bps) fell sharply.
Empirical evidence – or just one look at Deutsche Bank’s stock price – confirms that the ECB’s negative rates have been revenue and profit negative, to wit from Goldman:
Sharp declines in both short- and long-term rates over 2014-16 corresponded to a substantial (>10%) NII estimate cut, a magnitude which put the sector’s profitability under pressure. However, there are key differences between the current outlook and historical experience, in particular during 2014-16 when rates first turned negative. With diminishing scope to lower deposit rates further and little evidence of easing pressure on lending margins (in particular given the extension of TLTRO, APS), an introduction of reserve tiering by the ECB screens as a key measure to stabilise the Euro area banks’ sector profitability.
There is just one potential loophole for the ECB to avoid destroying Europe’s banks by cutting rates further. As Goldman notes, deposit rate tiering is therefore critical.
Unlike Japan or Switzerland, the ECB does not offer deposit rate tiering, and thus its introduction would be critical for moderating the impact of an incremental rate cut. According to Goldman, the ECB adopting the Swiss model of tiering has scope to reduce the negative effect by ~⅓.
Without tiering, an extremely challenging operating environment becomes worse, and may push an increased number of banks towards break-even, or even loss making territory. However, not all tiering is the same, and the schemes in use vary greatly in the extent of the offset they provide. In our mind, key questions centre around the following two issues:
could ECB’s tiering efficiency resemble the Swiss or Japanese approach? Swiss approach to tiering is our base-line scenario. And
will it be applied to the incremental cut (-20bp) only, or the full -60bp? In our view, an offset for the entire -60bp is important.
Implementation aside, we see a strong fundamental case for tiering. Euro area banks paid c. €21bn to the ECB since negative deposit rates were first applied in 2014, with the current €7.5bn annual charge set to increase if an incremental rate cut materialises. The skew of ECB’s deposit charge is high, and incurred almost entirely (>80%) by German, French and Benelux banks. Finally, ECB’s absence of tiering is unlike the approach pursued by the Swiss or Japanese central bank
Finally below we lay out Goldman’s 4-step approach to gauging the impact of the ECB’s prospective rate cut on bank profits (overview in Exhibits 1-5):
Step 1: “Gross effect” (Columns 1 in Exhibit 1): Estimating effect of a -20bp rate cut, without a tiering offset;
Step 2: “Tiering shield” (Columns 2 in Exhibit 1): Goldman estimates the revenue uplift from tiering introduction (Swiss approach, Tiered reserve rate offered at 0);
Step 3: “Net effect” (Columns 3 in Exhibit 1): Is the combined effect of an incremental rate cut, alongside the positive effect of tiering. This assumes the end effect, when the assets and liabilities fully reprice.
Step 4 “Timing impact” (Columns 4 in Exhibit 1): This takes into account the timing mismatch of effects of tiering on one side, and the full repricing of balance sheets on the other. Due to the front-loaded effects of tiering, tiering would result in a neutral near term effect on banks (and even positive effect for some banks).
In other words, unless the ECB follows the BOJ and SNB into tiering, its rate cut could – ironically – end up being the straw that finally breaks the European’ banking system camel’s back.
In summary, a reduction in interest rates coupled with tiering impact would differ in magnitude as well as timing. While a negative impact of lower rates would exceed the positive revenue uplift associated with reserve tiering, the latter would likely be front-loaded, in our view. All in all, Goldman concludes that the near-term impact on Euro area banks may prove relatively modest given the upfront benefit of tiering could offset initial pressure from lower reinvestment yields.
On the other hand, it is unclear if even tiering would much, if anything to stop the melting of Europe’s €45 trillion melting financial icecube, Deutsche Bank.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LCo7VN Tyler Durden
“On Wednesday, in back-to-back hearings with the former special counsel, that wish could face its final make-or-break moment.”
The very fact that Democrats had to subpoena Mueller in order to create this final moment should in fact be the final reminder of what a mistake it was for Democrats to have waited on him. If Mueller had incriminating information yet to share, or had been stymied from doing his work, or if Attorney General William Barr had somehow misrepresented his findings, then it stands to reason that Mueller would be welcoming the opportunity to appear before Congress, not resisting it. The reality is that Mueller’s investigation did not indict a single person for collusion with Russia, or even for anything related to the 2016 election. Mueller’s report found no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy, and even undermined the case for it.
That said, there are unresolved matters that Mueller’s testimony could help clarify. Mueller claimed to have established that the Russian government conducted “a sweeping and systematic” interference campaign in order to elect Trump, yet the contents of his report don’t support that allegation. The Mueller report repeatedly excludes countervailing information in order to suggest, misleadingly, that the Trump campaign had suspect “links” and “ties” to people connected with Russia. And Mueller and other intelligence officials involved in the Russia probe made questionable investigative decisions that are worthy of scrutiny. To address these issues, here are some questions that Mueller could be asked.
I should note that missing from my list is anything related to obstruction. This topic will surely dominate Democrats’ line of questioning, but I view it as secondary and more appropriate for a law school seminar. The core issue of the Mueller investigation is alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s potential coordination with it. The obstruction issue only began to dominate after it was clear that Mueller had found no such conspiracy. Although the report does show examples of Trump’s stated intent to impede the Mueller investigation, the probe itself was unhindered.
There is also the fact that Mueller himself declined to make a call on obstruction, and even presented arguments that could be used to refute it. The obstruction section of the report notes that Trump was not “involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Although not dispositive, Mueller says that “the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.” In a joint statement with Barr, Mueller also made clear that “he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice.” Accordingly, I see no reason why Congressional Democrats are so confident that Mueller found otherwise.
1. Why did you suggest that juvenile clickbait from a Russian troll farm was part of a “sweeping and systematic” Russian government interference effort?
The Mueller report begins by declaring that “[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” A few paragraphs later, Mueller tells us that Russian interference occurred “principally through two operations.” The first of these operations was “a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,” carried out by a Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The inference here is that the IRA was a part of the Russian government’s “sweeping and systematic” interference campaign. Yet Mueller’s team has been forced to admit in court that this was a false insinuation. Earlier this month, a federal judge rebuked Mueller and the Justice Department for having “improperly suggested a link” between IRA and the Kremlin. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich noted that Mueller’s February 2018 indictment of the IRA “does not link the [IRA] to the Russian government” and alleges “only private conduct by private actors.” Jonathan Kravis, a senior prosecutor on the Mueller team, acknowledged that this is the case. “[T]he report itself does not state anywhere that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency activity,” Kravis told the court.
Kravis is correct. The Mueller report did not state that the Kremlin was behind the social media campaign; it only disingenuously suggested it. Mueller also goes to great lengths to paint it as a sophisticated operation that “had the ability to reach millions of U.S. persons.” Yet, as wealready know, most of the Russian social media content was juvenile clickbait that had nothing to do with the election (only 7 percent of IRA’s Facebook posts mentioned either Trump or Clinton). There is also no evidence that the political content reached a mass audience, and to the extent it reached anyone, most of it occurred after the election.
2. Are you still convinced that the GRU stole Democratic Party emails and transferred them to Wikileaks?
Between the initial July 2018 indictment of 12 GRU officers for the DNC email theft and Mueller’s March 2019 report, some wiggle room appears. As I wrote this month for RealClearInvestigations, Mueller’s report uses qualified, vague language to describe the alleged GRU theft of Democratic Party emails, offers an implausible timeline for when Wikileaks may havereceived the emails from the GRU, and acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information.
3. Why didn’t you interview Julian Assange?
The uncertainty in Mueller’s account of how WikiLeaks received the stolen emails could possibly have been cleared up had Mueller attempted to interview Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks founder insists that the Russian government was not his source, and has repeatedly offered to speak to US investigators. Given that Assange received and published the stolen emails at the heart of Mueller’s investigation, his absence from Mueller’s voluminous witness sheet is a glaring omission.
4. Why did you imply that key figures were Russian agents, and leave out countervailing information, including their (more) extensive Western ties?
In the report, Mueller goes to great lengths to insinuate—without directly asserting—that two key figures in the Trump-Russia affair, Konstanin Kilimnik and Joseph Mifsud, acted as Kremlin agents or intermediaries. In the process, he omits or minimizes extensive evidence that casts doubt on their supposed Russia connections or makes clear their far more extensive Western ties. Mueller ignores the fact that the State Department described Kilimnik as a “sensitive source” who was regularly supplying inside information on Ukrainian politics. And Mueller emphasizes that Mifsud “had connections to Russia” and “maintained various Russian contacts,” but doesn’t ever mention that he has deep connections in Western intelligence and diplomatic circles.
Stephan Roh, a Swiss lawyer who has previously represented Mifsud, has maintained that Mifsud “is not a Russian spy but a Western intelligence co-operator.” Whatever the case, it is puzzling that Mueller emphasized Mifsud’s “connections to Russia” but ignored his connections to governments in the West. It’s also baffling that none of this was clarified when the FBI interviewed Mifsud in February 2017—which raises a whole new question for Mueller.
5. Why did you indict several Trump officials for perjury, but not Joseph Mifsud?
Adding to the puzzle surrounding Mifsud is Mueller’s revelation that Mifsud made false statements to FBI investigators when they interviewed him in February 2017. (Mifsud was in Washington, DC, for a conference sponsored by the State Department, yet one more Western “connection” that has gone overlooked). If Mifsud really was a Russian agent, then it was always a mystery why he was not arrested then, nor indicted since. And given that Mueller indicted others for lying to the FBI—foremost George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn—it is unclear why Mifsud was not.
6. Why did you omit the fact that Rob Goldstone’s offer to Donald Jr.—”official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”—was “publicist puff” (in other words, a lie)?
Mueller devotes a 13-page section to the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian nationals after Trump Jr. was promised “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.” Mueller says that “the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects,” but acknowledges that the Russians present “did not provide such information.”
What Mueller conspicuously does not acknowledge is that the information “that the Campaign anticipated receiving from Russia” was in fact fictional, and not from Russia. The offer came from British music publicist Rob Goldstone, who was tasked with securing the meeting at the request of his Russian pop star client, Emin Agalarov. In an act of what he called “publicist puff,” Goldstone said he about “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” that would later be widely described as “the smoking gun” for collusion.
Goldstone told me this week that he was disappointed that Mueller chose to omit that critical part of his testimony. “I told them that I had used my PR, puffed-up flourish in order to get Don Jr.’s attention,” Goldstone said. Mueller’s decision to exclude that, Goldstone added, is a “shame… It would have been opportunity to have closure on that.”
7. Did the Trump campaign receive any Russian government offers of assistance from anyone actually acting on behalf of the Russian government?
The Mueller report obscures the absence of contacts between Trump and Russian government intermediaries with ambiguous, suggestive assertions that the investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign,” or “identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.”
But the cases of Konstantin Kilimnik, Joseph Mifsud, and Rob Goldstone underscore a rather inconvenient fact for proponents of the theory that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government: There are zero documented cases of Trump officials interacting with actual Kremlin intermediaries making actual offers of assistance. The only Kremlin officials or representatives shown to interact with the Trump camp in any significant way before the election are the Russian ambassador having routine encounters and a Kremlin assistant who declined Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s request for assistance on the failed Trump Tower Moscow project.
8. Were US intelligence officials compromised by Russophobia?
Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus towards Russia. “I do always hate the Russians,” Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe, testified to Congress in July 2018. “It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life.” As he opened the FBI’s probe of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russians in July 2016, FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: “fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians… Bastards. I hate them… I think they’re probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages.” Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian nationals as a cause for alarm: “The Russians,” Clapper said, “almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.” In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker, who helped oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: “It was about Russia, period, full stop… When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across our radar screen, it’s coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia… we’ve been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades.”
The fixation with Russia was so great that, as TheNew York Times revealed in January, on top of the FBI’s initial probe in the summer of 2016, the bureau opened a second probe in May of 2017 over whether or not Trump himself was “working on behalf of Russia against American interests.” TheNew York Times story makes no allusion to any evidence underlying the FBI’s concern. Instead, we learn that FBI was “disquieted” by a “constellation of events,” all public:
Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.
This account is remarkable not just because it shows that the FBI opened up an extraordinary investigation of the president of the United States as agent of Russia based on their interpretation of public events. It also shows that their interpretation of those public events involved several errors—Trump’s July 2016 comment was a joke, and the story about the GOP platform change was overblown (and later undermined in practice when Trump sold the weapons to Ukraine, a move President Obama had opposed).
The fact that so many key officials carry such xenophobic animus toward Russia – to the point where they felt compelled to act on erroneous interpretations of public events – raised legitimate questions about whether their personal biases influenced their professional decisions.
The same could be asked about the influential media and political voices who, despite the absent evidence and sheer absurdity of their conspiracy theory, elevated Russiagate as the dominant political issue of the Trump presidency. Whatever questions they may have left for Mueller, the now former special counsel and savior figure has made clear that he is not the answer.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SFzgpC Tyler Durden
New unemployment figures from the Midland, Texas metropolitan area, which includes Midland and Martin counties, jumped to 2.1% from a near-record low of 1.7% in May, according to Willie Taylor, chief executive officer of the commission’s Workforce Solutions Permian Basin.
Midland unemployment
January 2019 2.3%
February 2019 2.2%
March 2019 2.1%
April 2019 1.7%
May 2019 1.7%
June 2019 2.1%
Taylor told Midland Reporter-Telegram (MRT) that layoffs have been sparked across the oil-rich-region, but since a labor shortage exists, workers can be easily replaced.
“We’re blessed to be able to say, if you want to work, you can find a job. The headache is we need skilled workers,” he stated.
One reason for the layoffs could be due to a slowdown in Permian Basin oil fields, would also reflect a broad industrial slowdown that is currently spreading throughout the U.S. economy.
The energy industry has been stalling for the last several quarters; crude production peaked about 100 days ago with rig counts topping last November.
A reduction in rigs is an early indicator of a decline in future output, signaling that exploration and production companies are cutting back on drilling amid an economy that is slowing.
Besides the slowdown in the energy complex, Taylor told MRT that their core focus is to expand the region’s workforce. He said his office encourages millennials to pick up a skill through job training programs that are tailored to the region.
Taylor said there is an urgent need for workers in childcare and education.
“As we grow our potential workforce, and as people come in, services like childcare are really needed,” he said. “We also need to bring teachers in. Young families want quality care, they want affordable care. We encourage those who want to go into childcare, we encourage cities, economic development groups, small businesses to work with us.”
As Midland’s unemployment rate edges up, the labor force rose to 106,549 from 106,103 in May and is about 2,000 above June 2018 levels.
For the 12 months from June 2018 to June 2019, Midland added 2,500 new jobs for a growth rate of 2.3%. The Mining, Logging, and Construction sector added 900 new jobs. Next was Trade, Transportation, and Utilities with 700 jobs and the Leisure and Hospitality sector with 600 jobs.
An industrial slowdown started making its way through the Permian Basin late last year is only now starting to translate into a slowdown for the area. With no end in sight on the downturn, the unemployment rate in Midland and Martin could move higher, this would also reflect a broader economic slowdown across the U.S. that will rear its ugly head in the second half.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JZkUfQ Tyler Durden
Americans are losing trust in each other, in the government, and in the media, according to a concerning new survey.
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that conducts public opinion polls and social science research and informs the public about issues, attitudes, and trends shaping the world. The organization recently published a new report called Trust and Distrust in America, which reveals that Americans think declining trust in the government and in each other is making it harder to solve important problems.
Confidence in the government and in each other is shrinking.
“Two-thirds of adults think other Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government. Majorities believe the public’s confidence in the U.S. government and in each other is shrinking, and most believe a shortage of trust in government and in other citizens makes it harder to solve some of the nation’s key problems,” the report states.
Many Americans think it is necessary to clean up the “trust environment”: 68% say it is very important to repair the public’s level of confidence in the federal government, and 58% say the same about improving confidence in fellow Americans.
There are several reasons for the decline in trust.
Diminishing trust is viewed by some as a sign of cultural sickness and national decline. Others believe it is linked to what they perceive to be increased loneliness and excessive individualism.
Those who think interpersonal trust has declined in the past generation offer a laundry list of societal and political problems, including a sense that Americans on the whole have become more lazy, greedy and dishonest. Some respondents make a connection between what they think is poor government performance – especially gridlock in Washington – and the toll it has taken on their fellow citizens’ hearts. (source)
Overall, 49% of adults think interpersonal trust has been tailing off because people are less reliable than they used to be.
In a comment typical of the views expressed by many people of different political leanings, ages, and educational backgrounds, one participant in a new Pew Research Center survey said: “Many people no longer think the federal government can actually be a force for good or change in their lives. This kind of apathy and disengagement will lead to an even worse and less representative government.” Another addressed the issue of fading interpersonal trust: “As a democracy founded on the principle of E Pluribus Unum, the fact that we are divided and can’t trust sound facts means we have lost our confidence in each other.” (source)
Levels of personal trust tend to be linked with people’s broader views on institutions and civic life. Those who are less trusting in the interpersonal sphere also tend to be less trusting of institutions, less sure their fellow citizens will act in ways that are good for civic life, and less confident that trust levels can rise in the future:
For instance, high trusters often have significantly more positive views about their fellow Americans’ civic and political behaviors than do medium or low trusters. The gaps are particularly striking when it comes to how much confidence high trusters and low trusters express in Americans’ willingness to treat others with respect (54 percentage point gap between the high and low trust groups), respect the rights of people who are not like them (48 points), do what they can to help others in need and obey federal and state laws (both have 45-point gaps), accept election results regardless of who wins (43 points) and honestly report their full income when paying taxes (38 points). (source)
Public confidence in the government is at historic lows.
Trust in government has been declining for decades, and for good reasons, according to the report:
Long-running surveys show that public confidence in the government fell precipitously in the 1960s and ’70s, recovered somewhat in the ’80s and early 2000s, and is near historic lows today.
By and large, Americans think the current low level of trust in government is justified. Just one-in-four (24%) say the federal government deserves more public confidence than it gets, while 75% say that it does not deserve any more public confidence than it gets. Similarly, among U.S. adults who perceive that confidence in each other has dropped, many think there is good reason for it: More than twice as many say Americans have lost confidence in each other “because people are not as reliable as they used to be” (49% support that statement) than take the opposite view, saying Americans have lost confidence in each other “even though people are as reliable as they have always been” (21% say that). (source)
The rise of independent news sources like Wikileaks that are not afraid to dump truth out there for all to see – exposing widespread government corruption in the process – has no doubt led to the diminishing trust in government.
The majority believes that officials and the media withhold information.
Confidence in institutions is associated with how those institutions handle and share important information with the public. People’s confidence in key institutions is associated with their views about the transparency of institutions. Those who hold those skeptical views are more likely than others to have greater concerns about the state of trust.
About two-thirds (69%) of Americans say the federal government intentionally withholds important information from the public that it could safely release, and 61% say the news media intentionally ignores stories that are important to the public.
In addition, many say it is becoming more difficult to tell fact from fiction:
Significant shares also assert they face challenges separating the truth from false information when they are listening to elected officials and using social media. Some 64% say it is hard to tell the difference between what is true and not true when they hear elected officials; 48% say the same thing about information they encounter on social media. (source)
In this era of rampant mainstream media “fake news” and the government’s long history of orchestrating false flags, it is no surprise many Americans do not trust either institution. Attempts to censor alternative media outlets are not exactly helping to build trust, either. Mainstream news outlets are often quick to report on events, often sensationalizing them, facts be damned. Remember when the MSM twisted the Covington Catholic story, essentially putting a target on the back of a teenaged boy? The MSM also has a tendency to sugar-coat important events, including glossing over details surrounding extremist attacks. There are countless examples of the media’s manipulation of details in order to fit a certain narrative. Often, it seems that the media is deliberately trying to incite civil war (that would be great for their ratings, right?).
While some level of trust is important to society, it has downsides.
The report explains that while social trust “is seen as a virtue and a societal bonding agent, too much trust can be a serious liability. Indiscriminate trusters can be victimized in any number of ways, so wariness and doubt have their place in a well-functioning community.”
As preppers know, the risk of widespread civil unrest becoming reality in the near future is increasing. “Uncivil behavior isn’t just widely accepted – it’s praised and cheered on. Hatred of one another is becoming the norm and this is how civil wars begin,” Daisy Luther warned us last year.
While it is wise to be careful about who you allow in your circle, distrust can be taken to the extreme. Finding a small group of like-minded people to collaborate with isn’t a bad idea. But because it can be difficult to know whom you can really trust these days, becoming as self-reliant as possible is crucial.
People link declining trust with other major problems they see.
On a grand scale of national issues, trust-related issues are not near the top of the list of Americans’ concerns. However, people do link declining trust as a factor that impacts other issues they do consider important:
For example, in their open-ended written answers to questions, numbers of Americans say they think there are direct connections between rising distrust and other trends they perceived as major problems, such as partisan paralysis in government, the outsize influence of lobbyists and moneyed interests, confusion arising from made-up news and information, declining ethics in government, the intractability of immigration and climate debates, rising health care costs and a widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Many of the answers in the open-ended written responses reflect judgments similar to this one from a 38-year-old man: “Trust is the glue that binds humans together. Without it, we cooperate with one another less, and variables in our overall quality of life are affected (e.g., health and life satisfaction).” (source)
Most people believe it is possible to regain trust.
The majority of Americans think that trust can be restored and that it is possible to improve the level of confidence people have in the government and each other:
More than eight-in-ten Americans (84%) believe it is possible to improve the level of confidence people have in the government.
Their written responses about how to make headway on trust problems urge a variety of political reforms, starting with more disclosure of what the government is doing, as well as term limits and restrictions on the role of money in politics. Some 15% of those who answered this question point to a need for better political leadership, including greater honesty and cooperation among those in the political class.
Similarly, 86% believe it is possible to improve peoples’ confidence in each other. They say local communities can be laboratories for trust-building as a way to confront partisan tensions and overcome tribal divisions. Some also make the case that better leaders could inspire greater trust between individuals. Others suggest that a different approach to news reporting – one that emphasizes the ways people cooperate to solve problems – would have a tonic effect. (source)
With pretty much universal agreement that Washington’s covert as well as politically overt support for pro-coup forces in Venezuela has utterly failed, and with an oil embargo still active but not showing signs of actually loosening Nicolas Maduro’s grip on power (instead only increasing the mystery of the common populace in the socialist country), the White House is really reaching down to its last ditch options in its regime change playbook, short of war.
A new Miami Heraldreport details the Trump administration “appears willing to offer guarantees to Nicolas Maduro that the U.S. will leave him alone if he leaves Venezuela.” Sources cited in the story dubiously claim Maduro is “looking for an exit” and that the White House is mulling giving him “guarantees” of escaping war crimes indictment should he hand over power to opposition leader Juan Guaido of his own accord.
Source: AP/The Washington Post
The “possible” “maybe” “perhaps” guarantee would be that the Trump administration would “consider” not bringing international human rights and war crimes related charges against Maduro if he exits power – tantamount to a “safety guaranteed” or ‘get out of jail free’ card of sorts.
A source identified as a high ranking Trump admin official told the Miami Herald:
“I think Maduro perhaps is looking for an exit, but he doesn’t know what it looks like, he does not know if there are guarantees to that. I believe he still thinks that if he goes to, let’s say, the Dominican Republic, we are going to come in and indict him and go after him.”
But the official followed with: “I think that’s the concern and that’s the only thing there’s room for negotiation with Maduro.”
The “high level” administration source spoke as if the offer has already been made, or is on the table, but given the number of caveats he used in framing the “guarantee” to the Herald, we seriously doubt Maduro will find it an attractive inducement to step down, now six months following his emerging clearly victorious from a Guado-led coup effort that only managed to peel off a tiny fraction of the Venezuelan armed forces’ officers.
“The official urged the Venezuelan leader to take advantage of the offer before it is too late,” the report continued.
Seeming to address Maduro directly in the interview with south Florida’s most visible paper, the official continued:
“The time has come to say, this is the opportunity you have, and we are willing to negotiate to close this chapter, but your opportunity is closing because now even the United Nations has created a case that could be used against you at The Hague.”
And added, “My concern is that it becomes a disincentive for him to find a way out. What we want to offer is … this should be your chance to turn the page, now, before it’s too late.”
It’s the latest apparent overture following June remarks by Trump indicating he’d grown “frustrated” and “bored” with pursuing regime change in Caracas. According to the former official who spoke to the Washington Post at the time, Trump had thought of Venezuela “as low-hanging fruit” on which he could “get a win and tout it as a major foreign policy victory.”
“Five or six months later . . . it’s not coming together,” said the Post‘s alleged source. The report had detailed how the president quickly cooled on regime change in Venezuela, and believed that national security adviser John Bolton “got played” along with the director for Latin American Policy, Mauricio Claver-Carone, following the unsuccessful attempt at a coup by opposition leader Juan Guaidó.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2K0CG26 Tyler Durden
After spending a day with Tokyo’s anti-Olympics organizers, it was clear why they are angry about the 2020 Olympics—and that they are ready to fight.
At first glance, this must appear to be the politest anti-Olympics movement imaginable. The group fighting against the games is known as Okotowari Olympics 2020, or No Thanks Olympics 2020. However, after spending a day among them, it is clear that the honchos in the Japanese Olympic Committee should be worried. These organizers are feisty, whip-smart, and their goal is nothing short of preventing next year’s Olympics from landing in Tokyo. Their concerns are based on the recent history of what happens to a city after the Olympics descend: debt, displacement, and hyper-militarization. For them, it is also a question of priorities.
In the words of one organizer, Tomiko, “People are still suffering from [the earthquake and Fukushima nuclear meltdown of] 2011. The government needs to spend money to help those still suffering, not on the Olympics.”
This group of activists and agitators spent the day taking a disparate group of three dozen people—many from past or future Olympic cities—on a tour of Olympic building projects already underway. By the time they were finished, it was very clear why they were protesting.
Akio Yoshida, who, like several of the Okotowari organizers, cut her teeth doing work in solidarity with Tokyo’s large homeless population, said, “The displacement already happening will just move more people from their homes. All Olympics discriminate. Some people are prioritized. Others are disregarded.” After touring future Olympic sites, we could all see who the winners will be: well-connected developers, construction magnates, and security barons. Meanwhile, the working poor and houseless will be left out.
We saw a body of water slated for open-water swimming, with bacteria levels dangerous to the human touch. We saw a baseball stadium, the home of the famed Yakult Swallows, that will be demolished, only to be rebuilt a block away to meet the specifications of the Olympics. We saw public spaces such as a youth aquatic center that will be shut down to make way for Olympic sports, while young people will have to spend next summer with their noses pressed against the glass. We saw a beautifully designed, massive public stadium that was built only for volleyball and will be handed over after the Olympics to a private business concern. The stadium cost $300,000,000.
Around Tokyo, we saw public spaces clogged with construction that fenced out everyday people. One public area that was typically buzzing with baseball was off-limits, while bulldozers constructed an Olympic track venue. It’s deeply ironic that a traditional location for amateur athletes to train will be demolished for Olympic facilities. As one organizer said, “What is the point of the Olympics if they will actually serve to stifle amateur sports?”
Atsumi Masazumi, who lives in the neighborhood around the new National Stadium, told us, “The area I was proud of is being changed for the worse by the Olympics. It’s sneaky to use the Games to change the building codes. It’s horrible.” He stressed that he loves sports but doesn’t love what the Olympics are doing to his city.
We also traveled to the Odaiba Marine Park, the future location of Olympic swimming and the triathlon. But the beach was fenced off from the public. Signs pegged to posts around the perimeter of the area informed passersby that the beach would be closed from July 1 through September 6 in order to hold an Olympics-related event. Again, spaces meant for the public were being cordoned off because of the Olympics.
We saw all this while walking in a typical Tokyo summer’s stifling humidity, a reminder of the kind of temperatures that outdoor athletes will have to face next year.
We didn’t just walk and tour. In a quick-fire action at Japan Sport Olympic Square, the activists unfurled two banners reading “Olympics Kill the Poor” and “Reverse the 2020 Tokyo Olympics” and posed for a photo in front of the Olympic rings. Jittery security guards on the scene treated the two banners as if they were Molotov cocktails in the making, desperately shepherding activists away from the vicinity.
Satoko Itani, a professor of sport and gender studies at Kansai University, told us that the Olympics-induced state of exception we saw in motion all around us was “not only about the Olympics, but what happens afterwards.” It is the concern of “what happens afterwards” that activists will spend the next year fighting. This week is meant to kick off those actions, with symposiums, demonstrations, and rallies. If today is any indication, they will be organized in a way that everyone involved is crystal clear that the stakes for Tokyo could not be higher.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZbZXVe Tyler Durden
Despite resistance from Democrats and hysterical accusations about the administration’s policy of running ‘concentration camps’ at the Southern border, the Trump Administration carried out its long-planned immigration raids last week. Unfortunately, the raids weren’t as successful as ICE might have hoped, which is probably why the administration didn’t go out of its way to publicize the results.
But somehow, the New York Times got its hands on the numbers, reportedly leaked by senior Homeland Security officials who may or may not have an axe to grind. This is what the paper reported: Out of 2,105 migrants targeted in more than a dozen cities, ICE succeeded in arresting 35.
That’s a success rate of just over 1.6%.
Officials privately blamed the flop on the fact that President Trump gave the raids – which he named Operation Border Resolve – so much publicity. The operation was planned as a “show of strength” amid the continuing crisis at the border, even as the number of arrests and the number of people crossing the border has retreated slightly since the highs reached in the spring.
For example, Trump warned that the raids would target migrants who had received final deportation orders, but who had not reported to ICE to begin the deportation process. These migrants then had weeks – thanks to repeated delays – to consult immigration lawyers, turn to the help of nonprofit groups or temporarily leave their homes for periods of time to evade arrest.
Pro-immigration non-profit groups leapt into action, and started counseling families about their rights and advised them on tactics to avoid ICE, such as refusing to open their doors for ICE agents. They also established a network of volunteers who gathered information on ICE agent sightings and shared it on social media.
In an interview Monday, the acting head of ICE, Matthew Albence, acknowledged the low number of arrests. Albence blamed the social justice warriors and others for making it “harder for us to effectuate these orders.”
“I don’t know of any other population where people are telling them how to avoid arrest as a result of illegal activity,” he said. “It certainly makes it harder for us to effectuate these orders issued.”
He also appeared to obliquely criticize President Trump for giving the operation so much publicity.
“You didn’t hear ICE talking about it before the operation was taking place,” he added.
The 35 people arrested over the weekend are among more than 900 arrested since mid-May in an operation called Operation Cross Check.
Since the vast majority of illegal migrants don’t show up for immigration court hearings, Albence said that typically, when migrants receive final deportation notices, they ignore the orders and go into hiding.
Albence also revealed that ICE has been cracking down on employers of illegal migrants as part of a “multipronged approach.”
“Part of our goal is to reduce economic opportunities,” Mr. Albence said. “We cannot have individuals who come into the country illegally and then go find work illegally.”
Albence said ICE had begun conducting “payroll audits,” requiring companies to submit their I-9 payroll information for review.
Despite the low number of arrests, DHS officials told NYT that this won’t be the last raid under Operation Border Resolve: More raids are expected before the end of the month.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2M9Qg6a Tyler Durden
The 13 seconds of that chant at the rally in North Carolina, in response to Donald Trump’s recital of the outrages of Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, will not soon be forgotten, or forgiven.
This phrase will have a long shelf life. T-shirts emblazoned with “Send Her Back!” and Old Glory are already on sale on eBay.
Look for the chant at future Trump rallies, as his followers now realize that the chant drives the elites straight up the wall.
That 13-second chant and Trump’s earlier tweet to the four radical congresswomen of “the Squad” to “go back” to where they came from is being taken as the smoking gun that convicts Trump as an irredeemable racist whose “base” is poisoned by the same hate.
Writes The New York Times’ Charles Blow in a column that uses “racist” or “racism” more than 30 times: Americans who do not concede that Trump is a racist — are themselves racists:
“Make no mistake. Denying racism or refusing to call it out is also racist.”
But what is racism?
Is it not a manifest dislike or hatred of people of color because of their color? Trump was not denouncing the ethnicity or race of Ilhan Omar in his rally speech. He was reciting and denouncing what Omar said, just as Nancy Pelosi was denouncing what Omar and the Squad were saying and doing when she mocked their posturing and green agenda.
Clearly, Americans disagree on what racism is. Writes Blow:
“A USA Today/Ipsos poll published on July 17 found that more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racists do so ‘in bad faith’ compared with those who do not believe it.”
Republicans and conservatives believe “racist” is a term the left employs to stigmatize, smear and silence adversaries. As one wag put it, a racist is a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal.
In the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton famously said of Trump’s populist base, “You could put half of them into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”
More than that, “Some … are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” To Hillary, Trump supporters were not part of the good America, the enlightened America.
Her defamation of Trump’s followers meshes with the media’s depiction of the folks laughing, hooting and chanting in North Carolina.
Trump supporters know what the media think of them, which is why in Middle America the media have a crisis of credibility and moral authority. Trump’s true believers do not believe them, trust them, like them or respect them. And the feeling is obviously mutual.
While raw and rough, how does the 13-second chant, “Send her back!” compare in viciousness to the chant of 1960s students on Ivy League and other campuses: “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is going to win!” This was chanted at demonstrations when the NLF, the Viet Cong, was killing hundreds of American soldiers every week.
How does 13 seconds of “Send her back!” compare with the chant of the mob that shut down midtown Manhattan in December 2014: “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”
This past week revealed anew what we Americans think of each other, which portends trouble ahead for the republic.
For a democracy to endure, there has to be an assumption that the loser in an election holds a promissory note that new elections are only a few years off. And if the losers can persuade a majority to support them, they can reassume positions of authority and realize their agenda.
Trump’s 40-45 percent of the nation is not only being constantly castigated and demonized by the establishment media but it is also being told that, in the not far distant future, it will be demographically swamped by the rising numbers of new migrants pouring into the country.
Your time is about up, it hears.
And most of the Democratic candidates have admitted that, if elected, the border wall will never be built, breaking into the country will cease to be a crime, ICE will be abolished, sanctuary cities will be expanded, illegal immigrants will be eligible for free health care and, for millions of people hiding here illegally, amnesty and a path to citizenship will be granted.
America, they are saying, will be so unalterably changed in a few years, your kind will never realize political power again, and your America will vanish in a different America where the Squad and like-minded leftists set the agenda.
Will the deplorables, who number in the scores of millions, accept a future where they and their children and children’s children are to submit to permanent rule by people who visibly detest them and see them as racists, sexists and fascists?
Will Middle America go gentle into that good night?
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GqVO8r Tyler Durden
In 2016 a Russia-Trump campaign collusion conspiracy was afoot and unfolding right before our eyes, we were told, as during his roll-out foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then candidate Trump said [gasp!]:
“Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out.”
NPR and others had breathlessly reported at the time, “Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., was sitting in the front row” [more gasps!].
This ‘suspicious’ “coincidence or something more?”event and of course the infamous Steele ‘Dodgy Dossier’ were followed by over two more years of the following connect-the-dots mere tiny sampling of unrestrained theorizing and avalanche of accusations…
2019, Wired: Trump Must Be A Russian Agent… (where we were told…ahem: “It would be rather embarrassing… if Robert Mueller were to declare that the president isn’t an agent of Russian intelligence.”)
It’s especially worth noting that a July 2018 New York Times op-ed argued that President Trump — dubbed a “treasonous traitor” for meeting with Putin in Helsinki — should “be directing all resources at his disposal to punish Russia.”
Fast-forward to a July 2019 NY Times Editorial Board piece entitled “What’s America’s Winning Hand if Russia Plays the China Card?” How dizzying fast all of the above has been wiped from America’s collective memory! Or at least the Times is engaged in hastily pushing it all down the memory hole Orwell-style in order to cover its own dastardly tracks which contributed in no small measure to non-stop national Russiagate hype and hysteria, with this astounding line:
That’s right, The Times’ pundits have already pivoted to the new bogeyman while stating they agree with Trump on Russian relations:
“Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia, represents by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term. That means President Trump is correct to try to establish a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China.”
[…Meuller who? ]
After peddling Russiagate and Russophobia for years, NOW NYT wants to lure Russia away from China? While still cling onto Russiagate? Genius! https://t.co/VBjNOmGJ9y
It’s 2019, andwe’ve now come full circle. This is The New York Times editorial board continuing their call for Trump to establish “sounder” ties and “cooperation” with Russia:
“Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often made progress in one facet of their relationship while they remained in conflict over other aspects. … The United States and Russia could expand their cooperation in space. … They could also continue to work closely in the Arctic… And they could revive cooperation on arms control.”
Could we imagine if a mere six months ago Trump himself had uttered these same words? Now the mainstream media apparently agrees that peace is better than war with Russia.
With ‘Russiagate’ now effectively dead, the NY Times’ new criticism appears to be that Trump-Kremlin relations are not close enough, as Trump’s “approach has been ham-handed” – the ‘paper of record’ now tells us.
President Trump is correct to try to establish a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China. But his approach has been ham-handed. https://t.co/T58h7fGz6V
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) July 22, 2019
Or imagine if Trump had called for peaceful existence with Russia almost four years ago? Oh wait…
“Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.” — Then candidate Trump on April 27, 2016
Cue ultra scary red Trump-Kremlin montage.
Image source: Vox.com
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30VX23E Tyler Durden
27% identify immigration as the most important U.S. problem
Surpasses record 23% naming the issue in June
A small number of issues have ever eclipsed 27% mentions since 2001
After hitting a new high last month, mentions of immigration as the most important problem facing the U.S. increased further to 27% in July. Since Gallup began regularly recording mentions of the issue in 1993, immigration has been cited by an average of 6% of Americans, though it has been higher in recent years. There have been occasional, typically short-lived, spikes when major immigration events were occurring.
The July 1-12 poll was conducted as the U.S. government continues to struggle to handle the large number of Central American immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. via the U.S.-Mexico border. The issue was brought into sharper focus in early July when Democratic congressional leaders and Republican Vice President Mike Pence made separate trips to facilities that are holding the migrants as they await asylum hearings. While Republican and Democratic leaders’ assessments of the situation differed, both acknowledged overcrowded conditions and characterized the situation at the border as a crisis.
Republicans have typically been more likely than Democrats and independents to name immigration as the most important problem, and that is still the case. In the latest survey, 42% of Republicans, 20% of independents and 20% of Democrats mention immigration.
All political groups are more likely to mention immigration now than earlier this year. In March, when a 2019-low 16% of Americans identified immigration as the most important problem, 31% of Republicans, 14% of independents and 6% of Democrats did.
Immigration Now Top Overall Problem
Immigration now sits at the top of the “most important problem” list for just the fourth time in Gallup’s trend, having also done so in July 2014, July 2018 and November 2018. The issue edged out the government, which has been a fixture at or near the top of the list throughout the latter part of the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
Race relations or racism (7%) and healthcare (7%) are the only other two issues to receive as many as 5% of mentions this month.
Consistent with Americans’ positive evaluations of the U.S. economy, only 14% name an economic issue such as the economy in general, unemployment or the gap between the rich and poor. The historical low in mentions of economic issues as the most important problem is 12%, registered in February and in September 2018.
Only Five Other Issues Have Topped 27% Mentions Since 2001
Gallup has asked the “most important problem” question since 1939, and has done so on a monthly basis since March 2001. Over the past 19 years, only five other issues have been mentioned at some point by at least the 27% who named immigration this month. These include the economy in general, unemployment, the situation in Iraq, terrorism and the government.
Since 2001, the economy has met or exceeded the percentage naming immigration this month on 58 separate occasions, most recently in November 2012. This includes 58% naming the economy in November 2008 during the Great Recession and financial crisis, the highest percentage naming any issue over the past 19 years.
Unemployment has reached the 27% threshold 17 times since 2001, topping out at 39% in September 2011, when the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.0% and President Barack Obama was proposing a major jobs program.
The government has been cited by 27% or more of Americans as the most important problem six times, with the high of 35% coming in February of this year, shortly after the longest government shutdown in U.S. history ended.
During the height of the U.S. war with Iraq between 2003 and 2007, the situation in Iraq routinely ranked as the top problem facing the country. On 21 occasions, the percentage naming it was at least 27%, with a high of 38% in February 2007.
Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 46% of Americans named terrorism as the most important problem facing the country. Mentions of terrorism surpassed 27% on four other occasions between 2001 and 2002.
Implications
Americans’ concern about immigration has reached a high point in Gallup’s measurement of the issue, at least based on the percentage of U.S. adults who perceive the issue to be the most important problem facing the country. Dramatic images of overcrowded detention centers and acknowledgments from politicians of both political parties that the issue is a crisis have likely contributed to the rise in concern. And even as Democrats and Republicans continue to dispute the best way to address the situation, Congress has passed and President Donald Trump has signed legislation to spend over $4 billion in additional funds to address the situation at the border.
That recent law marked a rare instance when the parties found common ground on immigration since a bipartisan attempt to address the issue in the mid-2000s failed. Obama, who was unable to get a Republican-led Congress to pass immigration reform, resorted to executive orders to attempt to institute new immigration policies. Federal courts blocked that course of action. Immigration was arguably the top issue in Trump’s 2016 campaign, and he, too, has been unable to pass favored legislation on the issue, including the full amount of funding he sought to extend the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Many of his attempts to circumvent the legislative process have also been blocked by Congress and the courts.
As such, immigration is likely to remain a top issue for Americans, particularly at points when large numbers of immigrants or asylum seekers are attempting to enter the country illegally.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2y3CJVh Tyler Durden
