Month: October 2019

A new report from Defense One shows the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is installing an invisible shield along President Trump’s Mexico-US border wall that will deny access to drug smuggling drones.

CBP recently signed a $1.2 million deal with Citadel Defense Company to install an automated, invisible defense shield at the border to detect and engage unwanted drones using proprietary machine learning algorithms. 

The contract is for six systems, and each will provide a 1.8-mile hemisphere of protection horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically on an unknown part of the wall. This contract is likely a pilot run, and if the results exceed expectations, more systems could be deployed across the border.

According to Citadel, the “autonomous, artificial intelligence-enabled counter-drone solution” is essentially a drone jamming tool that can easily be deployed within minutes. The system monitors the airspace above, can commandeer a drone’s navigation system and reroute its path back to its home base or safely land it on the ground. 

The contract includes 12 months of software upgrades, support, and training, said Defense One. 

“Drones have become a greater challenge along the border. Our nation’s border agents deserve the safest and most advanced technology available,” Citadel CEO Christopher Williams. “Citadel’s automated solution provides front-line operators with an awareness of drone threats and decision-making to respond faster than the adversary.”

Williams said the initial rollout is for six systems, collectively can provide a hemisphere of protection of about 11 miles.

“Technology is being deployed in limited quantities in 2019 after months of testing and validation,” he said. “Following 2020 presidential budget decisions, the potential for additional systems at larger quantities will be explored.”

Shown below are several examples of drug smuggling drones found on the Mexico-US border. 

Drug smuggler using drone busted by Border Patrol, authorities say.https://t.co/x75hj6XSox pic.twitter.com/JdhVimOkxp

— FOX 5 San Diego (@fox5sandiego) August 18, 2017

Border Patrol agents are increasingly worried about the threat from drug-cartel-flown drones. https://t.co/cpYwCk5rDf pic.twitter.com/mdKIuDdYrL

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) January 3, 2018

Drones that carry drugs on the US-Mexico border, narco-buses traveling between Colombia and Ecuador, and even narco-ambulances in Argentina. These are some of the creative strategies criminals are adopting to traffic drugs.https://t.co/dUGcoD6xiu pic.twitter.com/3RK3JxGEb9

— InSight Crime (@InSightCrime) September 20, 2018

Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

Summary

• Births in America continue to tumble despite a growing child bearing population.

• The growth among the child bearing population is decelerating and this population will begin outright declines around 2029.

• US births are likely to continue falling, faster and far deeper, while current Census estimates continue to anticipate growth (continually just around the corner).

The chart below is the 20 to 40 year old US population (blue line) and the columns are the annual change in that population (maroon columns).  The 1960 to 1990 population surge in the wake of the baby boom is easy to see as is the echo-boom from early 2005 through the 2020’s.

From a births perspective, it doesn’t matter what the total US population is…the only population that matters are those capable of child birth.  I show the 20 to 40 year US population as they are responsible for over 90% of the births while those under 20 and those over 40 are producing so few children relative to 20 to 40 year olds as to be statistical noise (births per thousand by age group is detailed by the CDC HERE).

From 1957 through 2007, the child bearing population increased by 72% while births increased only 0.2% (just two tenths of 1%).  Obviously, it was the rise in the child bearing population offsetting the collapse in the fertility rate that maintained the flat birth rate.

• 1957 through 2007

  • Child bearing population rose by 34.8 million (72% increase)

  • Annual births rose by 10 thousand (0.2% increase)

2007 through 2019 was the period that births were anticipated to spike with the rising echo-boom child bear population busily reproducing.  An echo baby-boom was anticipated.  Instead, a prolonged and deepening baby-bust has taken place.  According to the CDC, in the 1st quarter of 2019 births continued to plummet across the board, but I’m assuming 2019 births will come in slightly less negative through the remainder of 2019 (I’m likely overestimating 2019 actual births at 3.73 million).

• 2007 through 2019

  • Child bearing population rose by +9.3 million (11.5% increase)

  • Annual births fell by <590> thousand (13.7% decrease)

The implications for what comes next should be obvious.

• 2019 through 2029

  • Child bearing population estimated to rise “just” 3.2 million or a little over 3%

  • Births are likely to continue falling as deeply negative fertility rates overcome what little child bearing population growth remains

• 2029 through 2040

  • Child bearing population estimated to fall 1.9 million

  • Births likely to fall even faster with a combined declining child bearing population and continued deeply negative fertility rates

Census birth estimates from 2000 (plus the nearly identical ’08 estimate) and 2017 are displayed below.  Clearly, since 2008, the Census is having a hard time adequately curbing their enthusiastic projections.  Although each projection is lower than the last, each projection continues significantly overestimating births.  With decelerating growth among the child bearing population through the 2020’s and outright child bearing population declines in the 2030’s…there is no reason for birth projections to be rising but the Census is having a very hard time catching down to reality.  In truth, there is good reason to begin projecting ongoing and deepening birth declines in the 2020 Census estimate (my estimate at a realistic 2020 Census estimate is included below, blue dashed line).

From 2009 through 2019, actual births versus estimated births were 5.3 million fewer than anticipated (and this includes all births, whether the mother was here legally or otherwise).  This is a crack in present and future growth nearly five times larger than all Americans lost in all wars the US has ever fought!  That’s 5.3 million Americans not in existence and not consuming the average $25,000 per/capita annually throughout their lifetimes.   But what is now a crack turns into a chasm, taking the same ’08 birth estimate versus a more realistic birth estimate through 2040, this represents almost 34 million fewer births (-22%) than was estimated in 2000 and 2008.  The Census will be forced to continue collapsing their total US population projections, as they have been doing since 2008 (detailed HERE).  The implications for declining potential economic growth based on collapsing quantity of potential consumers (while productivity, innovation, and advancements continue increasing capacity…for a declining basis of consumption) should have the CBO and the like heads spinning.

A continuation of the current falling fertility and birth rates is a really, really good bet (chart below).

The age segment that will continue to grow rapidly, the post childbearing 45+ year old population (red line, below).  Notice even showing the broadest child bearing population (15 to 45 year-olds, yellow line), the stall in growth since 1990 relative to the growth of elderly.  Among the 45+ year-olds, the majority of population growth over the coming decade will be among 75+ year-olds, a segment with less than 10% labor force participation, consumes at very low relative levels, and utilizes little to no credit (nor should they, primarily living on fixed incomes).

The debt based US economic system premised on perpetual consumptive growth (as a dual net importer and net debtor) is now facing long term depopulation from the bottom-up while the numbers of elderly surge.  But only those who suggest this is likely to lead to some sort of “hiccup” are the crazy ones?!?

Population data via US Census Population Projections and UN World Population Prospects 2019

Millions of Californians may have just suffered an unprecedented, induced blackout by the state’s largest (and bankrupt) utility, PG&E, just so it isn’t blamed for starting even more fires causing it to go even more bankrupt… but at least the price of gas is soaring.

According to Fox5NY, citing figures from AAA and the Oil Price Information Service, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in Los Angeles County was $4.25 on Wednesday, 4.5 cents higher than one week ago, 57.6 cents more than one month ago and 37.1 cents greater than one year ago. It has also risen 86.4 cents since the start of the year. What is more troubling is that as California gas prices reached the highest level in the state since 2015, some Los Angeles area gas stations are charging more than $5 a gallon.

The gas price spike started last month after Saudi Arabia oil production facilities were attacked, and accelerated after three Los Angeles-area refineries slowed or halted production due to maintenance issues and no imported gasoline was available to make up for the shortfall, according to Jeffrey Spring, the Automobile Club of Southern California’s corporate communications manager.

Only in California… 👀 pic.twitter.com/7BiLAF8oHv

— Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) October 2, 2019

The shortage was made worse after local refineries cut back production of summer-blend gasoline in anticipation of switching to selling the winter blend beginning Nov. 1.

But wait, there’s more: America’s most “environmentally conscious” state got a harsh lesson in electrical engineering when many of the tens of thousands of people hit by this week’s blackout learned the hard way the systems don’t keep the lights on during a power outage.

That, as Bloomberg reports, is because most panels are designed to supply power to the grid, not directly to houses. During the heat of the day, solar systems generate more juice than a home can handle. However, they don’t produce power at all at night. So systems are tied into the grid, and the vast majority aren’t working this week as PG&E cut power to much of Northern California to prevent wildfires.

Of course, the only way for most solar panels to work during a blackout is pairing them with batteries, however as Tesla has found out the hard way, that market is just starting to take off and even so it’s having a very difficult time making headway. The largest U.S. rooftop solar company, Sunrun, said hundreds of its customers are making it through the blackouts with batteries. Alas, the total number of those affected – and without power – is in the hundreds of thousands.

“It’s the perfect combination for getting through these shutdowns,” Sunrun Chairman Ed Fenster said in an interview. He expects battery sales to boom in the wake of the outages.

For those wondering if their appliances can work of the power generated by a Tesla, the answer is no, at least without special equipment. Incidentally, without electricity, a Tesla itself won’t run. So those Californians who still have “uncool” internal combustion engines are in luck; they just may have to pay nearly $6 per gallon soon to fill up.

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

In a nation that has prided itself on the “American Dream” – that anyone can become wealthy if they work hard enough and make the right decisions – it’s probably a shock to learn that a lot of folks no longer believe in capitalism.

But the shock goes even deeper than that. A report from the Cato Institute that examined Americans’ opinions on wealth and the wealthy says that 47% of American socialists believe that  “taking violent action against the rich may be justified.”

About the report

The Cato Institute is a think tank that performs independent, non-partisan research into a wide range of issues related to personal liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. You can learn more about the Cato Institute here.

The new report is entitled What Americans Think About Poverty, Wealth, and Work.

The survey…investigates attitudes toward the rich and the poor and examines what Americans believe about work, welfare, and social mobility. (source)

Many of the results seem to be right down party lines and in this political climate, are frighteningly predictable.

Let’s take a look at the findings.

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Opinions have taken a shift since 2016.

In 2016, Democrats were about as favorable toward capitalism (58%) as socialism (56%). But after President Donald Trump took office, Democrats became more favorable toward socialism. Today, 64% of Democrats have favorable opinions of socialism and 45% are favorable to capitalism. Republicans continue to have overwhelmingly favorable views of capitalism (77%) while only 13% have favorable views of socialism. (source)

Why did this shift occur?

According to half of the Democrats surveyed, President Trump caused them to dislike capitalism and lean more toward socialism.

At the same time, 44% of Democrats say that Trump has not influenced their views on capitalism vs. socialism. 72% of independents and 64% of Republicans reported that President Trump has not influenced their views on the economic model.

Overall, 59% of Americans favor capitalism and 39% favor Socialism.

Thoughts on Wealth

Opinions on wealth were varied. Here were some of the findings:

84% of Americans believe “there is nothing wrong with a person trying to make as much money as they honestly can.”

• 61% want to raise taxes on anyone who makes more than $200,000.

• 53% want to raise taxes to a whopping 70% on those who make more than $10 million.

• 65% of Americans over age 60 oppose the increased tax on people making more than $10 million, while 62% of those under 30 support the increase.

A worryingly slim majority of Americans do not believe that wealth should be redistributed from the rich to the poor.

• 62% oppose the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. (Where do they intend for that 70% millionaire tax to go?)

• Down party lines, here’s who believes in wealth distribution: 58% of Democrats, 36% of Independents, and 15% of Republicans think that money should be taken from the rich and given to the poor.

More than half of Americans (55%) believe that the distribution of wealth in this country is “unfair.” This is divided by age and political philosophy.

• 79% of Democrats find the distribution unjust.

• 55% of Independents find the distribution unjust.

• 67% of Republicans find the distribution just.

• 70% of people under 30 think the current distribution of wealth is unjust

• 61% of people over 65 think the current distribution is just.

The distribution of wealth (or lack thereof) will probably be a key factor in the next election. It was only a couple of years ago when a group went public about their desire to “expropriate” the assets of the wealthy and redistribute them to the poor.

Young people vs. old people

Let’s talk about younger people’s opinions versus older people’s opinions. Cato reports:

People under 30 are about 20–30 points more likely than Americans 65 and over to:

• believe the rich got rich by “taking advantage of other people” (52% vs. 27%)

• believe billionaires are a threat to democracy (51% vs. 26%)

• feel “angry” when they read or hear about rich people (44% vs. 11%)

• believe it’s “immoral” for society to allow people to become billionaires (39% vs. 13%)

• believe that citizens taking violent action against the rich may be justified (35% vs. 10%)

• support redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor (53% vs. 20%)

• support raising top marginal tax rates (62% vs. 43%)

Young Americans are about equally favorable toward socialism (50%) and capitalism (49%). In stark contrast, Americans 65 and over solidly prefer capitalism (76%) to socialism (34%). (source)

It is not out of line to blame our education system for pushing socialism and leftist professors who promote violence for these attitudes.  In fact, the Democratic Socialists of America urge socialists to become teachers to accomplish just this.

However, it might be consoling to note that when a similar survey was undertaken in 1978, more than half (54%) of Americans under 30 believed that wealth should be redistributed from the rich to the poor. The young people who were 18-29 then are 59-70 now, and you can see how their opinions have changed. That should provide some hope that the attitudes of current young people will change as they become more mature and have more life experience.

People have wildly varying views on how rich folks became wealthy.

One of the biggest points of disparity was opinions on how rich people attained their money. Liberals and conservatives are completely at odds regarding this.

• Strong liberals say the top drivers of wealth are family connections (48%), inheritance (40%), and getting lucky (31%)

• Strong conservatives say the top drivers of wealth are hard work (62%), ambition (47%), self-discipline (45%), and risk-taking (36%)

• Strong Liberals say the top causes of poverty are discrimination (51%), an unfair economic system (48%), and a lack of educational opportunities (48%)

• Strong Conservatives say the top causes of poverty are poor life choices (60%), a lack of work ethic (52%), breakdown of families (47%), and drugs and alcohol (47%) (source)

With these differences in perspective, it is easy to see how difficult it would be for liberals and conservatives to come to a consensus regarding policy to “fix” the poverty in America.

What attitudes most influenced people’s points of view?

According to this report, there are two major factors that influence people’s points of view regarding capitalism vs. socialism: resentment and compassion. The report says:

Statistical tests find that resentment of high achievers has about twice the impact as compassion for the needy in predicting hostility toward capitalism and support for raising taxes on the rich. However, compassion is a better predictor of support for increasing welfare benefits. Both resentment and compassion predict support for socialism. (source)

At the same time, 69% believe that billionaires became wealthy by creating value for others, and 65% believe that the nation is better off when people become wealthy because they, in turn, will invest in businesses that create jobs.

Most Americans (82%) believe that people should be “allowed” to become billionaires. However, this really breaks down in the Democratic party, where 54% of them believe that billionaires are a “threat to democracy.” Unsurprisingly, 65% of socialists believe that “allowing” billionaires is immoral.

And this is where things get kind of scary.

There are more people than you might think who believe that “citizens taking violent action against the rich” is acceptable. Here are the people who believe that it is acceptable in some situations to be violent toward the wealthy.

• 17% of Americans in general

• 47% of socialists

• 36% of liberals

• 35% of those under 30

One must wonder what they mean by “violence.”

Do they mean that violence should be used to expropriate the wealth or violence should be used just for the sake of harming the wealthy for the audacity of being financially well-to-do? Do they want to use guillotines like the people in the French Revolution to enforce their goals of wealth distribution?

Conclusion

At this point, there’s a hard push toward socialism in this country.

Most folks who believe in socialism don’t see the correlation between those policies and the collapse of Venezuela for example. They don’t understand that every time in history that food production was collectivized, people died of starvation. On the other hand, a lot of the vocal people who are against socialism have views that appear to be condescending and judgmental, neither of which is going to win over hearts and minds.

As someone who has been dirt poor despite my very hard work, I find the opinions that cite laziness and drug use to be downright offensive. As someone who managed to dig myself out of poverty, I find the concept of having the results of my hard work “redistributed” to be equally offensive.

Also note: this article is based on the Cato Institute’s statistics – this isn’t an opinion piece.

The ‘Open Skies’ treaty which the US signed in 1992 and went into effect in 2002 is the agreement which allows Russian surveillance planes to occasionally fly over the heart of North America, in an unusual arrangement which has US residents understandably freaking out when they might look up and see a large Russian Tu-214ON aircraft overhead. 

The post Cold War treaty allows its 34 member states to conduct short-notice, unarmed observation flights to monitor other countries’ military operations in mutual verification of arms-control agreements. 

However, following the Trump administration’s pullout of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), it seems the White House increasingly views the ‘Open Skies’ agreement as also obsolete. CNN reported late Tuesday the administration is expected to soon exit the treaty. “The Trump administration is expected to soon announce that it plans to exit the Open Skies treaty, a US official tells CNN, a move that has already drawn condemnation from Democrats in Congress,” according to the report.

Critics of such a move have sounded the alarm that a withdrawal will only increase the likelihood of a new global arms race between the US and Russia, given it would make it impossible for the US military to closely monitor the Russian military in its own surveillance flights. 

According to the State Department, the treaty is “designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information through aerial imaging on military forces and activities of concern to them.”

The treaty even allows Russian recon flights over tightly restricted Washington D.C. airspace — in past years Russian Tupolev Tu-154s have even flown at low altitude over such sensitive sites as Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, the US Capitol, the Pentagon, and CIA headquarters in Langley. 

Prior reports suggesting Trump is prepared to pull out have resulted in fierce push back by Congressional Democrats, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, writing a letter to the Trump administration saying he was “deeply concerned” by the possible withdrawal. 

Among vocal supporters of Trump’s reported plan to cancel participation in the treaty is Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, who called the Cold War-era agreement a waste.

“Vladimir Putin has violated the Open Skies Treaty for years while continuing to benefit from surveillance flights over the United States,” Cotton said on Tuesday. “The president should withdraw from the Open Skies treaty and redeploy the hundreds of millions of dollars the Pentagon wastes on the flights and equipment to increase U.S. combat power.”

Authored by Elias Marat via TheMundUnleashed.com,

The lawsuit accuses Epic Games of enlisting “psychologists to help make the game addictive.”

The company behind Fortnite is facing a lawsuit that accuses the makers of the online game of intentionally designing it to be addictive.

The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of two parents in Quebec and seeks class-action status, also accuses Epic Games of creating a game that is “as addictive as cocaine.”

Last week a legal notice was filed in Quebec’s Superior Court that accused the U.S.-based company of designing a game meant to hook its users, Global News reported. The complaint also said that players of the game have been forced to seek treatment for their addiction.

Alessandra Esposito Chartrand of Calex Legal, the firm representing the parents, said:

“[Their boys] had all the symptoms of severe dependence _ addiction –(and) it caused severe stress in the families as well.

“It’s the same legal basis [past tobacco lawsuits] – the duty to inform about a dangerous product and responsibility of the manufacturer.”

Last year, the World Health Organization classified “gaming disorder,” or video game addiction, as an actual disease—not unlike drug addiction.

Calex’s legal notice said:

“The addiction to the Fortnite game has real consequences for the lives of players: Several don’t eat or shower, and no longer socialize.”

Fortnite belongs to the class of games known as “Free-to-Play,” or F2P, which allow players to acquire the game for free—but they also have the option of speeding up their progress by making in-game purchases.

Many F2P games have daily revenues raised by games can reach from the tens of thousands to over a million dollars. Fortnite, an industry leader, has become a massive cultural phenomenon since it took 2018 by storm, and managed to generate $3 billion in revenue for Epic Games last year.

Lawyer Jean-Philippe Caron, who helped bring the lawsuit, accused the game creators of enlisting the help of “psychologists to help make the game addictive.”

In a 2010 article by industry magazine Gamasutra, Settlers Online game designer Teut Weidemann gave a glimpse into the mindsets of game developers, revealing an openly cynical approach to consumers.

In the interview, the designer touted the seven biblical sins—vanity, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, sloth—as a go-to guide for “monetizing all the weakness of people” while keeping them “addicted and make them keep playing.”

Christopher Schmitz, a colleague of Weidemann, added:

“Game design is not about game design anymore — now it’s about business.

“We do exploit them, but they should not feel like they’re treated in a bad way.”

A majority of voters polled by Rasmussen agree with President Trump’s statement that “It is time for us to get out of these ridiculous endless wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. We will fight where it is to our benefit, and only fight to win.”

According to the poll, 58% agree with the above statement, 20% disagree, and 22% were unsure. 

As Rasmussen notes, “Even 55% of Democrats agree with the statement,” adding the caveat: “Rasmussen Reports did not identify Trump as the source of the quotation in its question.“

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republicans and 50% of voters not affiliated with either major political party also agree. Democrats and unaffiliateds are more likely than GOP voters to be undecided.

Forty-four percent (44%) of all voters continue to believe that our political leaders send American soldiers into harm’s way too often, but that’s down from 52% two years ago and the lowest finding in regular surveying since January 2013. Only four percent (4%) think U.S. solders aren’t send into harm’s way enough. Thirty-eight percent (38%) view the balance as about right. –Rasmussen

The poll comes after the Trump administration announced late Sunday night that US forces in northern Syria would step aside to allow a planned Turkish offensive, saying in a statement: 

“Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area.

“The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.”

While 57% believed the US military is overstretched just three years ago, 38% of the 1,000 likely voters polled said the same when asked between October 7-8. 43% say the military can adequately handle the number of missions it has, while 19% are undecided. 

“This marks the first time in Rasmussen Reports surveying that voters who are comfortable with the military’s efforts outnumber those who think it is overstretched.“

Delving deeper (the rest of the report): 

In late December of last year, 37% of voters agreed with Trump’s subsequently postponed decision to remove all U.S. troops from Syria; 47% disagreed, and 16% were undecided. But at the same time, only 35% thought U.S. involvement in Middle East politics is good for the United States.

Those under 40 are even more likely than their elders to agree with Trump’s statement, although younger voters are less convinced than they have been in the past that our leaders are too eager to send in the troops.

Democrats (53%) are much more likely than Republicans (34%) and unaffiliated voters (46%) to think our political leaders send American soldiers into harm’s way too often. They’re also the most likely to think the U.S. military is overstretched these days.

Yet while 80% of voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing agree with his statement about getting out of “endless wars,” only 44% of those who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s job performance share that view.

Those who agree with the statement are evenly divided over whether the U.S. military is overstretched now, but 57% of these voters think our political leaders sent U.S. solders into harm’s way too often.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of all voters think the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Prior to Trump’s election, this finding generally ran from the mid-20s to the low 40s.

Seventy-one percent (71%) say that when Trump thinks about problems in the world, he is more interested in finding a solution that most benefits the United States rather than the one that’s better for the world. By comparison, only 23% thought President Obama was more interested in finding a solution that most benefits the United States

Fewer voters than ever see Afghanistan as important to America’s well-being, but most still stop short of supporting a complete troop withdrawal.

Fifty-five percent (55%) said two years ago that the most important mission of the U.S. military is to fight our enemies.  Just 28% disagreed and said the military’s most important mission is to serve as peacekeepers to prevent fighting from breaking out in other parts of the world.

We wonder what the responses would look like from Democrats if the leading quote was attributed to Trump? 

As Summit News noted Wednesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suddenly reversed her longstanding opposition to ‘forever wars’ upon Trump’s pullout from Syria. We wonder what other ‘values’ she’d compromise in the blink of an eye.