In some not so surprising news, a spy expert has come out saying what most of us already knew: the Steele dossier was completely “fabricated.” Nigel West, one of Britain’s leading experts on espionage, was hired to examine the dossier written by his friend Christopher Steele. He concluded it was all manufactured falsehoods.
West, hired to examine the dossier back in 2017, quickly concluded that “there is… a strong possibility that all Steele’s material has been fabricated,” according to the Sunday Times.
Woah. Britain’s @thesundaytimes reports that the infamous “Steele Dossier” on @realDonaldTrump, compiled by a former MI6 spy, which accused the US president of being compromised by Russia & drove the “Russigate” hoax, was a work of “fabrication.” https://t.co/Yyc8Bt5r4M
Steele’s scandalous document, which claimed extensive ties between the then-US President-elect Donald Trump and the Kremlin, was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017 and quickly became the cornerstone of “Russiagate.” Media talking heads insisted that much of it had been corroborated. In fact, nothing was. –RT
It took West a long time to come out with the information that the dossier was an utter fabrication. It isn’t clear why he waited so long to reveal what most already knew anyway. Even the FBI director at the time, James Comey, described the dossier as“salacious and unverified” in testimony to Congress. But the fact that this dossier was “unverified” did not stop Comey from signing an application for a FISA warrant that the Bureau used to spy on the Trump campaign via one of its advisers, Carter Page.
West told RT that he was surprised Steele made such obvious errors in the dossier. Some of the most glaring mistakes were those such as treating one particular source as an expert in three entirely different fields or making up the existence of the Russian consulate in Miami, Florida. The source in question starts out as a middle-manager at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, but is later described as an expert on cyber warfare, and later yet as an expert on money-laundering by Russian immigrants in the US, West explained.
“On the face of it, it looked inherently improbable that this single source was as proclaimed.”
Coronavirus Could Hinder Beijing’s Ability To Fulfill Phase One Trade Deal
China’s next dilemma will be fulfilling the phase one trade deal, which states they must buy $200 billion in additional products from the U.S. over two years on top of pre-trade war levels, reported the South China Morning Post (SCMP).
The outbreak of the deadly virus has dramatically slowed China’s economy, with nearly 57 million people in 15 cities on lockdown for the next several weeks. Factories and transportation networks across much of the country are shut down, which means goods across domestic and international supply chains are not free-flowing in the country.
Cases of the deadly virus continue to exponentially rise, as government numbers on Tuesday night show more than 6,000 infected and 132 confirmed deaths. Comparing the deadly virus with the 2003 SARS outbreak – it’s important to note that coronavirus has already surpassed the number of infected by SARS in a few weeks, compared to the nine-month ordeal almost two decades ago.
Traders who spoke with SCMP had their doubts that China could hit hard targets of an additional $32 billion agriculture and $52 billion energy pledge over the next two years, mostly because the demand for the goods has collapsed. Also, countries like Brazil and Argentina have eroded U.S. market share in China over the last year with cheaper products.
“There are some cities and villages essentially in lockdown, and this will completely hamper the movements of not only people, but also agricultural goods. So hogs that are supposed to be going to the slaughterhouse, will just not be transported,” said Andrei Agapi, associate pricing director for agriculture at S&P Global Platts in Singapore.
Large swaths of the country’s industrial complex have been shut down, expected to last for the next several weeks. Currently, there’s no cure, and the spread of the virus is becoming uncontrollable, this could lead to extended shutdowns.
We noted Monday, Foxconn has a large manufacturing plant making Apple’s iPhones in Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus outbreak, along with other facilities nearby, are currently closed until February 10.
Besides major industrial hubs closed, critical transportation networks across China remain closed, which has impeded the ability of goods to move freely across the country.
“The viral outbreak definitely throws a wrench into those [purchasing] plans, not just in terms of logistics – as major ports and transport links are closed or disrupted – but also in [terms of] policymaker attention,” said Nick Marro, global trade lead at The Economist Intelligence Unit in Hong Kong.
Marro said the country is occupied with “mobilizing most of its resources to handle the outbreak, which is now the top item on the policy agenda. The trade war with the U.S. inevitably has to come second.“
Agapi said private buyers who want to hedge their import purchases in the futures market might not be able to do so until February 3, when markets open.
“Anybody that wants to buy soybeans will not be able to hedge their crush margins on the futures exchange, and that will be an additional reason why people will just hold off on their buying,” Agapi said. “Some people are also not going to be able to come to work depending on the restrictions on travel. So in practical terms, I think that is going to lower the buying base.“
Carlos Casanova, an Asia-Pacific economist at Coface, said the impact of the economy coming to a halt will be felt on the largest companies with “supply chain exposures to Wuhan and other cities that are locked down. As no merchandise will be leaving soon, we anticipate some degree of disruption and payment delays.”
Renaud Anjoran, CEO of China-focused trade and manufacturing advisory firm Sofeast, said travel bans in the country could lead to a more pronounced industrial slump, where factories could be idled for an extended period that would create further problems with the ability of some companies to purchase U.S. goods.
New York City professor suggested on national television that President Donald Trump has engaged in a “murder conspiracy” during his ongoing senate impeachment trial.
Maya Wiley, professor at the New School in New York City, made the comment Thursday during an appearance on MSNBC.
“[W]hen you look at the obstruction, part of what House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) is saying is, this is suicide for congressional oversight if we do not take action on a president who by the way just yesterday in Davos kind of rejoiced at the fact that they had all the evidence and not Congress…” Wiley said.
The professor appears to be referencing comments in which Trump said during his visit to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland,
“When we released that conversation all hell broke out with the Democrats. Because they said, ‘Wait a minute, this is much different than what [Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)] told us.’ So, we’re doing very well. I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job,” Trump said of the first hours of the Senate impeachment trial.
“But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material,” Trump added.
Wiley then compared the president’s actions to that of a “murder conspiracy.”
“But it’s also a murder conspiracy and the victim here is the Constitution,” Wiley said.
Coronavirus Attention “Way Overblown”, Dr. Ron Paul Warns Real Danger Is Fed “Doesn’t Have Control”
Dr. Ron Paul appeared Wednesday on the Quoth the Raven Podcast to speak with host Chris Irons about the coronavirus, Fed policy and gold prices heading into the election.
To start, Dr. Paul claimed that he thought fears about the virus were overblown. He said the virus is being reported on “way out of proportion with the amount of attention people should be giving it.”
“The danger is way overblown. There’s no way what I’m saying is perfectly clear, I’m just going by my best and what’s happened in the past,” he said.
When asked about the origins of the virus and whether he thought it could have been human-made, he said:
“About whether or not it came from a laboratory or was produced deliberately, I just don’t think so.”
“It’s all a gimmick, probably to try and sell more vaccines,” Dr. Paul commented when asked about whether or not he believed China’s data about the virus.
Dr. Paul said he didn’t believe just as he doesn’t believe the U.S. when it came to China’s macroeconomic data. From there, Dr. Paul talked about the addiction to money printing the Fed currently has.
“It’s the middle class that suffers” when the Fed destroys the money, Dr. Paul said. And when asked about whether or not its possible to even gauge risk anymore, given the amount of money printing that has taken place in the U.S., he replied that he didn’t think it was possible.
When speaking about the Trump administration’s policy of continuing to print money, Dr. Paul said there are “short-term benefits” but that ultimately, “the Fed doesn’t have control” of what happens in the long term.
“They don’t have control and it just drives them nuts,” Dr. Paul says.
“The markets are more powerful.”
When asked about what he thought the price of gold would do heading into the November election, Dr. Paul commented: “The gold price is going up. Spending is excessive and it’s going to get worse. And it will be monetized.”
“There’s always an excuse for gold to jump $100,” Dr. Paul concluded.
When asked about the country’s consistent position of being at war in the middle east, Dr. Paul said it “makes him sick” when congresspeople use the constitution and freedom as an excuse to go to war.
Finally, on the topic of the impeachment, Dr. Paul said:
“They’re trying to impeach a President out of clear blue hatred…”
The investment case for oil companies has been under attack recently. Climate change activists know that the dividends paid by the largest of these companies are among the most lucrative and stable over time, of any payers in the marketplace today. Further, they know these attacks will receive wide coverage precisely because of the criticality of the dividend stability to these companies stock price. It’s a two-fer for these folks. The only thing is…it isn’t true.
Dividends are the principle reason to own the shares of the major oil companies. The dividend payouts these days are yielding 4-7 percent, thanks to the depressed equity valuations of the oil majors. As you will note, this is well above most other options, like U.S. 10-year treasury notes as an example. Any threat to the dividend will absolutely bring a “dog diving under the bed in a thunderstorm” response from the typical investor. They will push the sell button lickety-split. And, of course, that’s just the response hoped for. Smart investors in these companies will pause just a moment for a second opinion. Perhaps one with some facts behind it, like you will read in this article.
“Sustainable” forms of energy are all the rage these days. You can’t watch a money show without hearing from the bloviator de jour about how “Green Energy” will replace traditional hydrocarbon sources in about ten-years or so. Among these worthies are the CEOs of major institutional holders, like Blackrock or Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and other large banking and fund management companies. These leaders will freely admit they are moving toward divestiture due to the political narratives regarding climate change, stating it as a fact. The truth is they have no rational basis, but are rather yielding to the out-spoken minority “stake-holders,” who are demanding action on their part to divest “dirty energy sources.”
As noted above in this article, we will take a closer look at the investbility of some of the biggest dividend payers on the planet. In doing this we will look past the splashy headlines that the CEO’s of these companies garner in watering-holes like Davos. Get ready for some real analysis, and prepare to sleep well at night knowing your retirement portfolio will be there when you need it.
Climate change propaganda and misinformation
The stimulus for this article was an article I chanced on by a climate change crisis group called the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, or IEEFA.
A little research finds this is an organization that takes its mission as:
“The Institute’s mission is to accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy.”
Hmmm, what the heck are they talking about, you may wonder? One thing is for sure they have an agenda against the petroleum industry, making their conclusions suspicious to this reader. Now, let’s understand information can be completely accurate and still be misleading.
I haven’t gone back and fact-checked any of the information linked from this IEEFA article. Instead, I did my own investigation using company documents to see if I could justify my faith in the companies whose viability was being questioned. My results will be revealed in the next section of this article.
Like most investigations that start with an agenda, the IEEFA article contains a grain of truth. This “grain” helps to anchor the disinformation that follows. To wit: many oil companies have outspent cash flows maintaining dividends over the time period measured.
IEEFA course provides no context here, just raw data. This can be misleading. In the discussion that follows, we will provide some context to help evaluate the concerns that we really have.
What is the trend for the future? Are our investments safe, as safe as any stock investment can be, and are the dividends many of us rely upon to maintain our retired standard of living, likely to continue?
That’s what I want to know, and I expect if you are reading this article, you do as well.
Reasons why super major stocks will remain investible
Let me offer the following points that should give you more confidence in the ability of these companies to continue earning your trust and your capital on into the future.
1. Dividend Payout Patios (Net income/dividend)
Ratios below 1:1 are considered “safe,” classically, but safe is a relative term. Over the past five years all of these companies with the exception of Total (NYSE:TOT) bonds sales have been the way they covered the dividend. Currently, they are in the range of or slightly above historical sub 1:1 levels.
The context lacking in the IEEFA article, denoted by the hump in the middle of the chart above, represents the full impact of the “lower for longer” oil price. The impact of these lower price realizations, and the fact that these companies were also slow to whittle down their capex budgets, meant that the dividend was being supported by borrowing.
So what is the truth, if that IEEFA article is so offbase? What are these companies telling us about coverage projections going forward? Let’s look at a few cash flow projections from this cohort.
Based on a Brent price of $60, Shell, (NYSE:RDS.A) (NYSE:RDS.B) projects free cash flows to rise from around $28 bn in 2020 to about $35 bn by 2025. With current obligations of about $16 bn for dividends, that leaves an increasingly fat amount for stock repurchases. Dividend coverage should improve consistently over this time and shareholders should lose no sleep. The check will be in the mail.
ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) recently has struggled to maintain a sub-1:1 cash flow to dividend ratio as my chart above shows. Currently, it is well above that and the current 5.15 percent yield notes the markets dissatisfaction with that situation. That will change and soon. With the Liza field coming on line and with break-even costs in the $30/bbl range, as much $5 bn of free cash could be generated from that project alone. XOM is on track to produce a million barrels a day from the Permian by 2025 with BE costs as low as $20/bbl. Bank America Merrill Lynch recently put out a bullish call on XOM with a price target based on increasing cash flow from these projects of $100/share.
Chevron (NYSE:CVX) is a dividend champion that has been increasing its dividend in recent years and lowering capex resulting in its current 0.53 coverage ratio. Market sages will tell you that the safest dividend is one that’s just been raised. CVX consistently ranks as one of the best-managed companies and has a project portfolio that will keep profits gushing in years to come. It grew cash flow by 50 percent YoY in 2018, and current management’s fiscal discipline should maintain that trend over the next few years. It currently covers capex and dividends with a $52 oil price, and has been buying back stock currently at a clip of $4 bn per annum.
This has turned into a long article so I will skip the same type of analysis for (NYSE:BP) and (NYSE:TOT) in terms of project portfolios and capex restraint. All of these companies have redesigned their upstream projects to be cash flow positive with oil prices much lower than they are now. In this core group of Super Major energy companies, investors should sleep well at night.
2. Stock buybacks.
These companies are all buying back billions of dollars of their common stock every year. This decreases the total dividend payout, and makes the dividend safer for each remaining share of stock. In the past year, Shell has bought back about $12 bn worth of its stock, on a 2018 commitment of $25 bn by 2020. Shell recently announced that weaker than expected oil prices might drag this out a bit. That knocked the stock price down a bit, which I saw as a buying opportunity.
Shell will buy another ~$3 bn in Q-1 of 2020. Do investors care if this happens by the end of 2020 or takes a quarter or two more? They shouldn’t. On the plus side, oil prices might rise more than anticipated and share repurchases could be accelerated. As you may have noted things can change rapidly in the oil market.
3. Debt reduction.
This is a priority for all of these companies and is being funded through free cash and assets sales with the proceeds going to debt reduction. Portfolio “high grading” is underway. It’s not perfect and sometimes it one step back for every two steps forward. Picking on Shell once again, the official target for debt to capital is 25 percent. Moving toward that goal for most of 2018, the company has taken a stutter-step higher to the 28 percent range. Part of this was due to lease costs hitting the balance sheet in late 2018. There can be no doubt that lower than anticipated oil prices has slowed this process.
Shell management reminds us of this regularly during the analyst calls. What matters to us is that they consider it a matter of the utmost priority. Ben Van Beurden comments in response to an analyst’s question regarding the timing of stock buybacks and debt reduction:
“So, very clearly, we are still completely intent on buying back $25 billion of shares and we are also completely committed to strengthening the balance sheet by bringing debt down.”
4. Diversifying the product mix to include “Green Energy.”
Green energy or sustainable energy sources is the path to the future, or so we are repeatedly told. It is only prudent for the big oil companies to seed research and startup companies in this area. So far, none of these efforts have reached the level where they are accounted for separately on the balance sheet however, with the notable exception of LNG. Whether it’s biodiesel in Brazil, or electrical charging stations in the UK, or wind farms in the Permian, or LNG, efforts are being put forth by them all. Whether any of these can turn a profit down the road remains to be seen. For now, it is enough that the exercise is underway, as it raises their ESG profile.
5. Investing in new technologies.
These companies all have and are developing more AI expertise with big data. The Shells and BPs of the world all generate huge amounts of data every day. Terabytes upon terabytes of it daily. Historically, the resources to manage this information efficiently just did not exist. Now it does these companies are moving rapidly to integrate and perhaps monetize this technology.
“AI can help find those cost reductions by tackling a range of problems. Its deployment in upstream operations could yield collective savings in capital and operating expenditures of $100 billion to $1 trillion by 2025, according to a 2018 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Most companies declined to discuss their exact spending on AI.”
As these resources are deployed in remote locations or refineries, costs will come down as the article quoted above notes.
Risks
Oil prices carry the key risk to dividend sustainability over the near and medium term. As we’ve seen in a plus-$50 environment they can all make money and cover their dividends.
West Texas Intermediate- WTI, has fluctuated wildly in price over the last 10 years. For the last four however, it has been above $50 except for a couple of very brief periods. I’m ok with economics built on $50 oil.
Environmental and Social Governance-ESG, risk must now be built in to the risk profile in owning these stocks. It can be thought of as replacing the old exploration risk that modern technology has reduced dramatically. When I entered the oilfield 40+ years ago, dry holes- ones with no hydrocarbon shows, ran as high as 85 percent of the exploration wells drilled. Today that ratio has more than flipped with dry holes being a rarity. Just what is the extent of this risk?
No one really knows for sure. That said, a measure of comfort can be taken in the broad ownership of legacy oil stocks. For example, have a look at the top ten institutional holders of ExxonMobil below.
These are the companies that hold the trillions of retirement dollars from 401Ks and Roth IRAs. They are invested in the big oil companies for yield, stability, and to an extent growth. I don’t mind keeping company with the tens of thousands institutional holders of XOM and the other companies we’ve been discussing.
The key takeaways for you as an investor in the big oil company dividend payers is that they are all on track to deliver the cash flow that underpins the dividends they are committed to pay.
As investors, there is no doubt we need to keep an eye on this ESG divestiture movement. For the short term it represents little threat to the value of our investments. It is worth noting however, the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth fund has endorsed companies like Shell and BP expressly. In a recent Financial Times article Norway’s Finance Minister, Siv Jensen commented that:
“Ms Jensen said the largest oil and gas majors were given a reprieve because Norway believed such groups were “in all likelihood” the ones that would make the main investments in renewable energy in the future.”
You have a responsibility here as well. That is the task of vetting what you read and take stock in. Ask yourself as read if there is an under-lying agenda that is masked behind the seemingly objective and forthright information being presented?
We’ve shown here that information presented this way can be completely factual and still be misleading. Potentially with portfolio damaging consequences if acted upon. Caveat emptor! Protect your wealth!
Flashback: Schiff Says John Bolton Has “Lack Of Credibility” As Resurfaced Video Clips Ruin 11th Hour Hail Mary
Several resurfaced clips concerning former national security adviser John Bolton reveal that Democrats, in particular Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said his 11th hour impeachment messiah had a “lack of credibility,” and was prone to “conspiracy theories” – and that Bolton thought there was nothing untoward about Trump’s interactions with Ukraine.
“This is someone who’s likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories,” Schiff told MSNBC‘s Rachel Maddow during a March 22, 2018 appearance (via Fox News) after Bolton was named national security adviser.
“And I’ll, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration,” Schiff continued. “So, you add that kind of thinking to [former U.S. attorney] Joe diGenova and you have another big dose of unreality in the White House.”
And in another clip posted by Donald Trump Jr. from 2005, Schiff asks during the Bush administration “why we would want someone” like Bolton “with that lack of credibility.“
Mr. Bolton has been AWOL – he’s been focused more on the next job than doing well at the last job – and particularly given the history, where we’ve had the politicization of intelligence over WMD. Why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly – that is John Bolton’s politicization of the intelligence he got on Cuba and on the other issues. Why would we want someone with that lack of credibility, I can’t understand.
FLASHBACK: Adam Schiff In 2005 Said John Bolton Has A “Lack Of Credibility” – YouTube https://t.co/Mc7U3rVrNa
As Fox News notes, “Then-Sen. Barack Obama, in 2005, echoed those arguments, calling Bolton “damaged goods” whose appointment as ambassador means “we will have less credibility and ironically be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”
Obama separately had said that Bolton “bullies, marginalizes and undermines those who do not agree with him.” Other prominent Democrats agreed at the time.”
Now, however, Schiff loves the guy – telling CNN on Monday that Bolton is “essential to the “search for truth.”
“I think for the senators, and I’m just not talking about the four that have been so much the focus of attention, for every senator, Democrat and Republican, I don’t know how you can explain that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial and say you don’t want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment,” Schiff said on CNN’s “New Day.”
“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it,” Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010. –Fox News
And on Wednesday, President Trump tweeted an August 2019 clip of Bolton in which he made no mention of any quid pro quo, and that battling “corruption” was a “high priority” for the White House. Bolton said that Trump’s communications with Ukraine’s new President, Volodomyr Zelensky, was “cordial.”
At least one establishment government is finally admitting that the ruling class of the world is going to be unable to stop the spread of the coronavirus. While globalists desperately attempt to craft a vaccine and save the day, other rulers think it could be too late.
According to the Daily Mail,Thailand’s government admits it’s “unable to stop” the spread of the coronavirus. The virus has already proven deadly and could be spreading much more rapidly than mainstream media and establishment ruling classes are willing to admit. Health minister Anutin Charnvirakul said there are too many Chinese visitors to stop the virus from spreading.
At least 22,000 people from Wuhan are believed to have visited Thailand in January alone.
With 14 confirmed cases of the disease, Thailand is the worst-affected nation outside of China. According to the Daily Mail‘s numbers, almost 4,600 people have caught the Wuhan coronavirus around the world so far, and 106 have died in China.
“Our target is we will be able to detect all carriers entering Thailand and we will apply necessary measures as the situation develops,” said Charnvirakul. “Of course, we expect more people to get sick but we are able to identify all of them.”
Countries all over the world are taking extraordinary steps to stop the coronavirus reaching their shores.
Hong Kong today said it would stop trains and ferries, Russia and Mongolia have closed land borders with China and airport screening is in place globally.
Thailand is screening all passengers from China at its airports and has planes on standby to retrieve an estimated 64 people who are stranded in the locked-down Hubei region. –Daily Mail
The coronavirus has been sickening people since December 31, 2019. Unfortunately, there have also been what are called “super-spreading” events in which one person can infect multiple others before they recover, speeding up the rate of transmission.
Lindsey Graham Says Has Votes For Witnesses, “There’s A Tsunami Of Evidence” Of Biden’s Inappropriate Ukraine Links
Despite Democrats constant proclamations that Hunter Biden, who was – unarguably – paid millions to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, is irrelevant to the impeachment charges against Trump and has no knowledge of the president’s conduct related to Ukraine, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham vehemently disagrees.
In a brief press conference this evening, Graham went ‘scroched earth’ blasting that:
“…there’s not a scintilla of evidence that the Bidens’ connection to Ukraine was inappropriate, there’s a tsunami of evidence.”
Graham added that while the House managers claimed this was “debunked,” the White House counsel “made a damning indictment” of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen and predicted that all 53 Republicans would vote to call Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a witness if Democrats get enough votes to subpoena any witnesses.
“The only thing I know for sure, that if we call one witness, there’ll be 53 votes — not 51, not 52, but 53 — to call Hunter Biden because he’s incredibly relevant as to whether or not the president, Trump, had a reason to believe that corruption was afoot in the Ukraine,” said Graham.
Finally the Senator warned that “if we’re gonna open this up to further enquiry, we’re going to go down the road of whether it was legitimate of the president do believe their was corruption and conflicts of interest on the Bidens’ part… and whether there is any credibility to the reports that the DNC met with Ukraine official in 2016.”
Watch the full clip below:
🔥SCORCHED EARTH🔥
Lindsey Graham says that if the Senate chooses to bring in impeachment witnesses, there will be “a lot” of them, including the Bidens, Schiff and the whistleblower whose complaint began impeachment.
The Democratic Party presidential race these days appears to be tilting toward Sen. Bernie Sanders.
It could turn into a runaway if Bernie wins by solid margins in the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. His chances in the Feb. 22 Nevada Democratic caucuses, which are traditionally dominated by the unions, aren’t bad either.
A lot of people are alarmed, not the least of whom is Hillary Clinton, who branded Bernie as “disliked” in a new documentary and is reported as having the “urge” to run herself. (When has she not?) More substantively, mainstream Democrats, even those who lean pretty far left, such as New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, are concerned they could be headed for “McGovern II”—in other words, a blowout.
I am pleased, not just because of the potential for an electoral college Armageddon that may or may not take place, or even because such an election would quickly put the bogus impeachment trial in the rearview mirror, but because, for the first time in decades, we would have a true election of opposites.
This wouldn’t be a so-called “uni-party” election resulting in minor differences in the tax code, as it usually does.
Trump versus Sanders would be capitalism versus socialism!
And Sanders’s version of socialism is the real deal, and not socialism “lite,” amounting to a couple of instances of tweaked welfare legislation. Bernie is the man who chose to have his honeymoon in the Soviet Union and who still refuses to brand Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro a despot.
Trump, of course, is a businessman-turned-president. There have been others, but, as never before, he is capitalism personified.
It’s high time that something this serious, this contrasting, were put before the public. I say, bring it on.
The battle would be epic. Sanders has remarkably devoted supporters who have been with him for two elections. His fundraising capabilities are legendary. He is the master of the grassroots, a leftwing rock star who overcame a coronary, seemingly in minutes. In a very real sense, Bernie will have deserved his nomination.
The challenge to Trump wouldn’t be simple. Merely calling Sanders “Crazy Bernie” would not suffice. Indeed, as yesterday’s strategy, it could well backfire by seeming to trivialize important distinctions.
Socialism is taken seriously by a large portion of America’s youth over several generations now. They have been taught that way from kindergarten through doctorate by an educational system that is largely socialistic in structure and ideology.
The media has reinforced this viewpoint, as has the entertainment industry. Would Robert DeNiro, Rob Reiner, et al., be supporting Bernie over Donald, despite that being contrary to their class interest? Well, we know.
Whose side would The New York Times and The Washington Post finally be on if it were Sanders versus Trump, not to mention the networks? They may have misgivings about Bernie, some of these outlets anyway, but their entrenched enmity for the president would undoubtedly prevail. They would “give socialism a shot.”
Trump will have to counteract all this. He’ll have to explain to the public why the ”fairness” and “social justice” that’s seemingly so attractive in socialist rhetoric is misleading and that capitalism is a better way to uplift the lower and middle classes, and that societal wealth isn’t a zero-sum game.
This won’t be easy for Donald – as a businessman, he’s a doer, not an educator – but he will have to learn how to do it, to slow down and perhaps be a bit didactic. He should explain, as Friederich Hayek did over a half-century ago, why socialism so often leads to totalitarianism.
He owes that to all of us, especially our miseducated youth.
Timing, however, will be on Trump’s side. This is a unique moment in history to resolve this eternal conflict, at least temporarily. Via capitalism, America has a boom economy, with salaries among the poor and middle class growing faster than for the upper classes. We are largely at peace and have been for a while.
Trump would win this epic battle, and it will be better for the country in the long run.
JPMorgan To Slash Hundreds Of Jobs Across Consumer Division
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is expected to announce several hundred layoffs in the coming weeks, according to a Bloomberg source.
Layoffs could be seen across the company’s consumer unit, which houses 50% of the bank’s revenue. The most affected subunits could include auto lending, home mortgages, and credit cards.
The cuts come at a time when JPM recorded some of the highest profits ever with $36.4 billion, due to a 56% increase in stock and bond trading in the fourth quarter, after it single-handedly triggered the repo crisis, forcing the Fed to launch ‘Not QE.’
The layoffs are expected to be announced on February 6th, the source said, adding that the cut will be about 1% of employees in the unit.
We noted Tuesday that JPM decided to keep annual bonuses flat across its investment bank segment for the 2019 year.
Banks around the world who are supposed to benefit from rising asset prices thanks to the central banks’ injecting unprecedented liquidity into markets – unveiled last year, the most significant round of job cuts in four years.
Banks are slashing jobs at record speeds in response to a synchronized global slowdown and adoption of automation.
JPM has cut more than 7,000 jobs from the consumer unit in the four years through 2018, and it’s likely the cuts will continue.
Fifty banks in 2019 slashed upwards of 78,000 jobs, the most since 91,448 announced in 2015.
Morgan Stanley last month fired 2% of its workforce, or approximately 1,500 workers, due to slowdown fears.
Earlier this month, Barclays Plc slashed 100 senior staff at its investment bank unit. These cuts were primarily made in Europe and the U.S.
Goldman Sachs has had its fair share of layoffs and pays reduction in 2019.
