Pentagon Reviewing Hypersonic Program As Investments In Mach 5 Missiles Expected To Soar
The Office of the Inspector General, US Department of Defense (DoD IG) is determining if it should allocate more funds to hypersonic development programs as it seems the US is behind the hypersonic curve.
The DoD IG’s review began in April and is centered around the future allocation of funds for new weapons that can travel five times the speed of sound. The Pentagon’s emphasis on hypersonic technology started in 2017 as Russia and China ramped up their efforts.
The Pentagon’s fiscal 2021 budget earmarks approximately $3.2 billion, up from $400 million approved in 2020. Planned spending on hypersonics could reach upwards of $12.6 billion by 2025, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Carver, a Pentagon spokesman, told Bloomberg in an email.
Senator James Inhofe, a senior Republican from oil-producing Oklahoma and Senate Armed Services Chairman, explained in a Defense News op-ed in December how the military’s hypersonic testing labs were inadequate, writing “dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one.”
Mark Lewis, the DoD’s director of research and engineering for modernization, who oversees the military’s hypersonic effort, recently said a “balanced approach” to testing is needed.
“We can test something into oblivion and you never wind up building it, you never wind up using it but at the same time there are clearly tests you want to do, you have to do before you build a system,” Lewis said.
We’ve noted on several occasions that hypersonic development and testing has been a high priority by the military. In March, the DoD launched a common hypersonic glide body missile from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii.
The Air The Air Force Global Strike Command made mention in April that it wants to mount hypersonic AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapons externally on the Rockwell B-1 Lancer supersonic bomber.
With hypersonics now becoming a top priority for the DoD, here is the breakdown of spending on development programs regarding the new missiles.
Breaking Defense outlines four of the hypersonic program the DoD is working on:
Air-launched boost-glide: Air Force ARRW (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon). The Air Force also had another program in this category, HCSW (Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon), but they canceled it to focus on ARRW, which the service considers more innovative and promising.
Surface-launched boost-glide: Army LRHW (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon) and Navy CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike). Both weapons share the same rocket booster, built by the Navy, and the same Common Hypersonic Glide Body, built by the Army, but one tailors the package to launch from a wheeled vehicle and the other from a submarine.
Air-launched air-breathing: HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons Concept) and HSW-ab (Hypersonic Strike Weapon-air breathing). Arguably the most challenging and cutting-edge technology, these programs are both currently run by DARPA, which specializes in high-risk, high-return research, but they’ll be handed over to the Air Force when they mature.
Surface-launched air-breathing: This is the one category not in development – at least not in the unclassified world. But Lewis said, “eventually, you could see some ground-launched air breathers as well. I personally think those are very promising.”
Some of the first hypersonic weapons could be deployed with the Army in 2023. Though, as we’ve previously noted, Russia has already deployed hypersonic missiles, and China has been doing many live-fire tests.
Norway’s $1 Trillion Wealth Fund Doubled Down On US Stocks During March Market Rout
Jeff Gundlach, Kyle Bass and – from the looks of it – Warren Buffett sat out last month’s market turbulence. Gundlach and Bass apparently cashed in their shorts and have repositioned for another pullback.
But at least one massive player in the “permanent capital” space apparently went all in. Amid a scandal that has rocked the Norwegian financial elite, the fund expanded its holdings of US stocks, something it has been planning to do for months, thought – fortunately for the Norwegians – waited to execute.
Interestingly enough, the fund, which is still being managed by veteran CEO Yngve Slyngstad, added to stakes in some of the worst-hit companies listed in the US, including Royal Dutch Shell (despite the fund’s decision to cut back on some oil stocks) and Carnival Corp. Apparently, Norway believes now is a good time to buy energy assets, an opinion that is shared by almost nobody.
According to filings by Oslo-based Norges Bank seen by Bloomberg, the list of companies where the fund acquired a stake of 5% or more includes 7 US-listed firms, including the aforementioned two, along with Australian mining giant BHP Group and Liberty Broadband.
The fund doubled its holdings in Shell.
The Norwegians aren’t the only oil money investing in Carnival (a symbiosis that we find oddly satisfying): Saudi Arabia’s $320 billion Public Investment Fund also built up a sizable stake in the troubled cruise line, which is facing a torrent of international outrage and a criminal investigation in Australia.
The chairman of some energy advisory firm quoted by Bloomberg defended the fund’s investment in Shell, arguing that the oil giant is “positioning themselvse for a cleaner energy future.”
“There has been a lot of volatility in the last three or four months, but Norges Bank thinks long term,” said Peter Fusaro, the chairman of Global Change Associates, a New York-based energy advisory firm. “Shell is actually not only looking at oil and gas assets, but positioning themselves for a cleaner energy future.”
The Norwegian fund’s stake in Shell Class B shares reached 5.1% on March 24, according to a filing with the SEC, up from the 2.55% at the end of last year.
While Shell’s Class B ADRs have rebounded from a low of $19.58 on March 18, they’re still well below an early January price of almost $62.
As Europe and North America continue suffering their steady economic and social decline as a direct result of imposing “lockdown” on their populations, other countries have taken a different approach to dealing with the coronavirus threat. You wouldn’t know it by listening to western politicians or mainstream media stenographers, there are also non-lockdown countries. They are led by Sweden, Iceland, Belarus, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Surprisingly to some, their results have been as good or better than the lockdown countries, but without having to endure the socio-economic chaos we are now witnessing across the world. For this reason alone, Sweden and others like them, have already won the policy debate, as well as the scientific one too.
Unlike much of the rest of the world who saw fit to unquestioningly follow China’s lead on everything from quarantining, to economic shutdowns, to contact tracing, and PCR mass testing, nonlockdown countries have instead opted for a somewhat lighter touch – preserving their economies and societies, and in doing so avoiding an endless daisy chain of new problems and obstacles deriving directly from the imposition of brutal lockdown policy.
On the European front, the Scandinavian country of Sweden is now garnering more attention than before, and has become an object of both criticism and fascination for those against or in favor of lockdown policy. While countries like the United States and Great Britain continue to top the global tables in terms of COVID-19 death tolls, Sweden has only suffered marginal casualties in comparison, while avoiding the intense strain on society and loss in public confidence which lockdown governments are now grappling with as they continue to push their populations to the limits of social stress and economic tolerance. You could say those governments are already careening over the edge by looking at the latest jobless figures coming out the US with 30 million new people filing for unemployment in the last few weeks.
Unlike many others, Sweden has not enforced any strict mass quarantine measures to contain COVID-19, nor has it closed any of its borders. Rather, Swedish health authorities have issued a series of guidelines for social distancing and other common sense measures covering areas like hygiene, travel, public gatherings, and protecting the elderly and immune compromised. They have kept all preschools, primary and secondary schools open, while closing college and universities who are now doing their work and lectures online. Likewise, many bars and restaurants have remained open, and shoppers do not have to perform the bizarre ritual of queuing around the block standing 2 meters apart in order to buy groceries.
According to the country’s top scientists, they are now well underway to achieving natural herd immunity. It seems this particular Nordic model has already won the debate.
Because Sweden decided to follow real epidemiological science and pursue a common sense strategy of herd immunity, it doesn’t need to “flatten of the curve” because its strategic approach has the added benefit of achieving a much more gradual and wider spread.
Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s government advisor for epidemiology explains, “We are all trying to keep the spread of this disease as low as possible, mainly to prevent our healthcare system from being overstretched, but we have not gone for the complete lockdown. We have managed to keep the number of cases low enough so the intensive care units have kept working and there has always been 20 per cent beds empty and enough protective equipment, even in Stockholm, where there has been a huge stress on healthcare. So in that way the strategy has worked.”
Similarly, it doesn’t have the deal with the newest “crisis” obstacle which lockdown states seem to be using as an excuse not to reopen society and the economy, which the fear of a “second peak” which governments are telling the public will wreak havoc on the nation by “infecting the vulnerable” and will “overwhelm the health services” if everything is suddenly reopened and social isolation and distancing is relaxed.
This catch-22 which countries like the US and UK are caught in is predicated on the belief that the coronavirus might suddenly unleash itself again on the populace. Certainly, there could be a second surge, but it should be noted that this is also a direct result of the decision to impose lockdown in the first place. According to top epidemiologist Dr Knut Wikkowski, the decision to lockdown only delayed the inevitable for countries like the US and UK, and quite possibly made the COVID-19 problem even worse than it would have previously been in the short to midterm, but in the long-term the results would be relatively the same proportionally in term of human casualties.
The penny should have really dropped after it was revealed two weeks ago by Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director for Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that the peak of the UK’s coronavirus “crisis” actually came a full week before Boris Johnson initiated lockdown on March 23rd.
In fact, if you plug in Sweden’s actual data into Neil Ferguson’s own infamous computer model which sent the UK government into mass-panic mode, here’s what you would get:
The numbers don’t lie, but statistics can be made to tell any story the narrator wants, especially when the storyteller is government. Just look at the last 50 years of announcements regarding unemployment and inflation levels. One thing we should have learned by now is that government will never let things like facts and real science get in the way of a slow motion train wreck in progress, hence you can see some UK officials still clinging to Ferguson’s initial prediction as some sort of “proof” that the lockdown was necessary to avoid “mass death.”
Outside of popular supposition and media talking points, there is no scientific study which shows that lockdown saved any significant number of lives. Instead, new data strongly suggests quite the opposite.
The Ribbing of Sweden
As western lockdown countries drift further and further into an economic and social purgatory, non-lockdown countries like Sweden seem to be the target of bad-natured criticism by western media punditry. This seems to be out of spite more than anything, as some journalists are sensing defeat after they had thrown their lot in with draconian lockdown policy early on, unquestioningly backing their governments’ one-size-fits-all approach to emergency management, once again invoking the TINA (There Is No Alternative) principle which history shows often precedes most man-made calamities from World War I, the Iraq War in 2003, to the 2008 Wall Street Bail Out.
Nonetheless, the media and political pressure has been almost relentless on Sweden for not complying with the west’s “lockdown consensus.”
The country has also been roundly criticized by some 2,300 academics who piled on scorn upon it in a letter posted in March demanding the government change course and immediately head for lockdown.
However, the country has held off, and has since won endorsements from a number of eminent academics and professionals, like Professor Heneghan who hailed Sweden for “holding its nerve,” in the face of such public condemnation. That steadfastness seems to finally be paying dividends now, as some western mainstream media outlets, and even the UN itself, are acknowledging their comparable success. The New York Post begrudgingly acknowledged that Sweden received praise from the high chair of global public health at the World Health Organization (WHO), now lauded it as a “model” for overcoming the coronavirus crisis.
Dr. Micheal Ryan, WHO head of emergency management said, “What it has done differently is it has very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry and the ability and willingness of its citizens to implement self-distancing and self-regulate.”
He added, “In that sense, they have implemented public policy through that partnership with the population …. I think if we are to reach a new normal, Sweden represents a model if we wish to get back to a society in which we don’t have lockdowns.”
So according to WHO, it is Sweden which could be the new normal – and not the reactionary medieval quarantine policies favored by other states. Is WHO really making an argument against obsessive social isolation, and collective economic suicide? Such words from WHO should, in theory, be reassuring to those stuck in their lockdown death spirals. But many in the west are still convinced of the TINA principle, even if their next door neighbor has chosen a short and more practical route through the eye of the storm.
More than anything, this conundrum speaks to the relationship between people and their governments. Indeed, it is the social contract between government and its citizens which forms the core of the country’s policy formation. The idea that the choice of lockdown policy is a straight trade-off between lives and economy is a false dichotomy which ignores many concomitant variables and factors which are at play.
“I don’t think it was in terms of economy versus a health of people. I think it was a broader concern about the social fabric in general,” said Lars Trägårdh, professor of history and civil society studies at Ersta Sköndal University College.
“It is wonderful that we have retained the amount of freedoms that we have here ….Who would have thought, you know, that Swedish social democracy would be in bed with American right-wing libertarians? Not me,” remarked Trägårdh.
Professor Cecilia Soderberg-Naucler from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute explained why the state was duty-bound to take the direction it did. “We must establish control over the situation, we cannot head into a situation where we get complete chaos. No one has tried this route, so why should we test it first in Sweden, without informed consent?” said Soderberg-Naucler.
This concept of people talking responsibility for their actions and for public well-being is actually enshrined in Sweden’s constitution. This means that the state does not have to threaten and abuse its citizens for things like not observing social distancing and buying ‘non essential items’ when out shopping, or meeting in small groups – as some governments are doing. Swedes know the risks and observe government guidelines accordingly. They also acknowledge that humans are not perfect and won’t use police and courts to punish citizens if they are not following guidelines to the letter – as is the case in many lockdown countries. In lockdown countries, the bad blood between the public and government will not evaporate after the ‘crisis’ is over, which is a real problem which lockdown governments will continue facing in the future.
Still, New York Post had to include the caveat that Sweden was something of a pariah state for “controversially refused restrictions.” The propaganda war could be seen in the paper’s subtle wordsmithing, where editors even went so far as to change their headline from “WHO lauds Sweden as ‘model’ in coronavirus fight for resisting lockdown,” to a slightly more incendiary “WHO lauds lockdown-ignoring Sweden as a ‘model’ for countries going forward”
How to change a headline so that something unambiguous becomes ambiguous. So that solid approval for Sweden’s approach becomes unclear.
Language is a weapon & your only defence is always to ask, ‘what position are these words suggesting I take, & does the evidence support that?’ pic.twitter.com/VriygnIph9
Swedish critics are quick to point out how poorly it’s doing compared to its Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark, Norway and Finland. They do this by pointing to the new global bible of public policy – the World-o-Meter coronavirus running totals – which for some people is now the end all and be all which it comes to declaring how really, really bad things are, and will continue to be (because that meter just keeps on running).
As of today, Sweden, which has a population of roughly 10.5 million, has recorded 21,092 cases and 2,586 fatalities from COVID-19, that’s roughly 256 deaths per million people.
By contrast, its southern neighbor Denmark which has a population of 5.8 million has recorded 9,1058 cases and 452 fatalities, roughly 78 deaths per million persons. Norway is similar population at 5.4 million, and has recorded 7,738 cases and 210 deaths, that’s 39 deaths per million. Finland has a population of 5.5 million confirmed just 4,995 cases and 211 deaths, with 38 deaths per million.
Critics of Sweden have all seized upon these differences in order to condemn their government for being “irresponsible” and “playing Russian roulette” with their citizens’ lives. If one didn’t know better from all the hysterical rhetoric, you’d think there was an impending genocide happening there. While these sort of polemic arguments seem to work in the narrow band of reality that are social media threads, the reality is that after scaling up its neighbors’ results to be in line with Sweden’s larger population which is roughly twice their size, the difference is statistically insignificant for a country of 10.5 million. They are basically arguing that when comparing Sweden to its neighbor Denmark, that a proportional difference of approximately 1,500 fatalities warrants Sweden closing all its schools and shutting down its entire economy and suffer all the chaos ill effects that goes with that course of action.
To put things in even more perspective, while Sweden has already suffered 2,586 COVID deaths in 2020, back in 2018 there were approximately 6,997 total respiratory disease deaths in Sweden – and the country’s healthcare capacity was not overrun, nor were any of their public systems stretched to breaking point.
It’s a ridiculous argument on its face, and yet, this is the line of thinking which seems to permeate through lockdown countries desperate to justify their own fatal policy decision.
It’s not a discussion for faint hearts, but this has been a reality for nations since time immemorial who have faced war, plagues and pandemics. There is no perfect answer, but there are practical answers that take utilitarianism into account.
Fear of the ‘Second Wave’
In what can only be described as a macabre display of bad faith, exasperated naysayers from lockdown countries seem to almost eager to see Sweden fall victim to the dreaded “second wave” which many Britons and Americans insist is a fait accompli, as their political leaders and science “experts” keep telling them. The threat of a “second wave” is certainly being used by some governments to justify an increasingly unpopular lockdown policy, but also lends itself to the preferences of Bill Gates who has been publicly advocating an open-ended lockdown arrangement until such a time that salvation will arrive in the form of a vaccine for the coronavirus. But even the most optimistic scenario would be somewhere between 18 months and two years, which begs the question of whether democracies and their economies can survive such an extended period of tumult. That’s a scenario which no one can realistically endorse, and yet it’s given prime time by mainstream media outlets who have been keen of offer-up the Gates plan as another TINA solution to the “pandemic.” Besides the obvious civilizational problems with the Gates global lock-up plan, it chronically ignores the fact that there are non-lockdown countries like Sweden who never opted into the west’s collective self-destruction pact.
Not everyone is on board with the inevitability of a “second wave” which the American and British government keeps insisting is coming if lockdown is lifted too early. Renowned Scottish microbiologist Professor Hugh Pennington is not convinced, saying that such a second peak is unlikely. “No, I’m not sure where this ‘second peak’ idea comes from,” says Pennington.
Still, Prof. Pennington seemed miffed as to where Boris Johnson’s government is getting its science from. “I know where it comes from, it comes from flu. Because when we have a flu pandemic we always get a second peak, and sometimes we get a third peak …. Now, why we should get one with this virus, I don’t quite understand …. It just seems to be a phenomenon with flu, and I don’t see any reason myself, and I haven’t seen any evidence to support the idea that there would be a second peak of the virus.”
According to other experts, one of the fundamental problem with lockdown policy favored by the US, UK other European countries, is that it was never evidence-based, or “guided by the science.” Quite the opposite in fact. Rather, it was a political decision, undertaken by politicians. Never in history has a country enacted such a universal measure which quarantines the healthy as well as the sick and infirmed. This also flies in the face of hundreds of years of epidemiological science and epidemic policy, and eschews the entire concept of natural herd immunity.
Again, the pragmatic approach would have been to protect those most directly effected by COVID-19 which is overwhelmingly the elderly and those in palliative care – a policy which would eventually bring a population herd immunity as a natural by-product of that policy. That’s been the approach taken by Sweden and other states, and according to numerous experts in the field, it makes sense on both an epidemiological level and well as a social and economic level.
In a recent interview with Radio 5, leading Swedish epidemiologist, Dr. Johan Gieseck, remarked how the UK had initially proposed the same plan as Sweden, but then Boris Johnson came under intense pressure from the media and opposition after the arrival of Imperial College’s notorious “500,000 dead” paper presented to the government by Prof. Neil Ferguson. As a result, UK officials quickly changed course in a “180 degree U-turn,” said Gieseck, who was shocked how an unpublished paper relying on computer models and with no peer review – could have played such a crucial role in altering such an important policy decision. How did that happen? One only has to look at the obvious nexus of funding between the UK government, Imperial College and the Gates Foundation to get a possible answer to that question.
The real question in all of this should be: who and what is driving western governments’ disastrous lockdown policy? After reviewing the evidence, we can rule out one possibility: it’s certainly not the science.
While the rest of the world is preoccupied with tackling the coronavirus pandemic, China is intensifying its efforts to extend its influence in the South China Sea by intimidating its Asian neighbours.
The arrival of China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier, together with five accompanying warships, in the South China Sea earlier this month has resulted in a significant increase in tensions in the Asia-Pacific region as Beijing seeks to take advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to flex its muscles.
So far in April, there were claims that a Chinese coast guard vessel deliberately rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat operating close to the disputed Paracel Islands. All the fishermen survived and were transferred to two other Vietnamese fishing vessels operating nearby.
The incident prompted a furious response from the Vietnamese government, which accused Beijing of violating its sovereignty and threatening the lives of its fishermen. The US State Department said it was “seriously concerned” about the incident and called on Beijing “to remain focused on supporting international efforts to combat the global pandemic, and to stop exploiting the distraction or vulnerability of other states to expand its unlawful claims in the South China Sea.”
In other incidents, Chinese vessels have been accused of harassing Indonesian fishing boats, as well as tailing Malaysian oil-exploration boats.
At the same time, China has provoked a diplomatic dispute with the Philippines following Beijing’s declaration that a region over which Manila claims sovereignty in the South China Sea is Chinese territory.
The dispute concerns China’s recent announcement that it intends to administer two disputed groups of islands and reefs in the waterway. One district covers the Paracel Islands, and the other has jurisdiction over the Spratlys, where China has built a network of fortified man-made islands. The Philippines has a presence of its own on at least nine islands and islets in the area, and bitterly opposes Chinese attempts to extend its influence.
Beijing has long claimed control over the South China Sea and the surrounding area because of its strategic significance as one of the world’s busiest waterways. Around one third of the world’s shipping passes through it and carries trade worth around $3 trillion. In addition, the waters contain lucrative fisheries, and huge oil and gas reserves are believed to lie beneath its seabed.
China’s gradual encroachment on the area has been resisted by other countries in the region such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei, which all have competing claims of their own.
As the region’s dominant power, China has shown little interest in seeking to resolve these conflicting claims peacefully. Instead, it has resorted to brute force, using its increasingly powerful navy to assert its dominance by harassing the shipping of rival states, even, at times, in their own territorial waters.
China’s increasingly aggressive action, known in Beijing as “Wolf Warrior diplomacy”, has prompted US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to warn that China is taking advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the coronavirus pandemic to push its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea. At a recent briefing to foreign ministers of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Mr Pompeo stated:
“Beijing has moved to take advantage of the distraction [over Covid-19], from China’s new unilateral announcement of administrative districts over disputed islands and maritime areas in the South China Sea, its sinking of a Vietnamese fishing vessel earlier this month, and its ‘research stations’ on Fiery Cross Reef and Subi Reef.”
Despite the Trump administration’s preoccupation with tackling the coronavirus pandemic, Washington is not prepared to tolerate China’s aggressive actions. Three ships from the US Seventh Fleet, together with an Australian frigate, have responded by sailing through the disputed waters in a show of force.
China’s communist leadership may believe that they can take advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to bully their Asian neighbours. But this show of force by the US Navy should send a timely reminder to Beijing as to which country is the real military power in the region.
These Are The 10 Most Expensive (And Cheapest) Cities In The World
Where personal wealth is concerned, there are two sides to every story.
The first of which is the amount of money a person earns, and the other is what they choose to spend their money on. As Visual Capitalist’s Katie Jones notes, the latter is influenced by the cost of living in the city where they reside – an ever-changing metric that is driven by a wide variety of factors, such as currency, population growth, or external market movements.
Today’s graphic visualizes the findings from the 2020 Worldwide Cost of Living report and uses data from 133 cities to rank the most expensive cities in the world.
Note: Report research was conducted towards the end of 2019, before the COVID-19 outbreak.
Asia Dominates the Ranking
Globally, the cost of living has fallen by an average of 4% over the last year, with much of the movement up and down the ranking being driven by currency fluctuations.
The locations with the highest cost of living are largely split between Europe and Asia. For the second time in the report’s 30-year history, three cities are tied as the top spot—Singapore, Hong Kong, and Osaka.
Source: EIU. New York City is index baseline (score = 100). Ties in index score values are denoted by (t).
Osaka is a newcomer to the top spot, climbing four places over the last year to join cost of living heavyweight champions, Singapore and Hong Kong. As Japan’s third-largest city, Osaka is a major financial hub and a breeding ground for emerging startups, with relatively low real estate costs compared to Singapore and Hong Kong.
Three European cities (Paris, Zurich, and Geneva) sit atop the most expensive city rankings, compared to seven cities only 10 years ago. Similarly, 31 of the 37 European cities have seen a decrease in cost of living overall—largely as a result of the Euro or local currencies losing value relative to the U.S. dollar.
Finally, the top 10 is rounded out with two cities from the United States (New York, Los Angeles) and one from Israel (Tel Aviv).
The Cheapest Cities
While East Asia is home to many of the world’s most expensive cities, South Asia hosts the largest grouping of cities with the lowest cost of living.
Source: EIU. New York City is index baseline (score = 100). Ties in index score values are denoted by (t).
Three Indian cities dominate the cheapest cities ranking due to a combination of low wages and high levels of income inequality, preventing any price increases.
Meanwhile, political and economic turmoil is a common denominator among the cheapest cities outside of South Asia. For example, the Syrian Civil War resulted in an economic collapse, leading to high inflation and a downward spiral in value for the Syrian pound.
A Spanner in the Works
The COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to cost the global economy up to $2 trillion in 2020, so while governments attempt to boost the economy, many are concerned about higher inflation rates spreading across the world.
With a recession becoming more likely, uncertainty around real estate prices will heighten for every city, regardless of their cost of living ranking.
As we navigate chaotic and uncertain times, the next cost of living survey could look very different to today—the most important question will be how permanent the damaging effects of the pandemic will be.
Joe Biden is not an “imperfect candidate” for the Democrats.
He is the perfect candidate, because he’s everything the party is: Demented. Decrepit. Bloodthirsty. Corrupt. Cronyistic. Authoritarian. Reactionary. Rapey.
He is exactly what they deserve. He is exactly what they are.
Joe Biden is the Democrat’s Democrat. He is the perfect representative of the party. They should even take it a step further and replace that donkey with Joe Biden.
Biden is to the Democrats as Trump is to the Republicans. Everyone’s just wearing their true face now.
~
If you’re willing to sacrifice all principles, all sanity and all morality to get rid of Trump, what exactly is the point of getting rid of Trump?
~
We know Biden is a liar. He’s been pinged for lying his whole career. Everyone is trying to undermine the victim’s character in order to discredit her while ignoring Joe’s character. We know he lies. He also has a history of unwanted sexual advances. His story is not credible.
~
Nobody actually believes that Biden didn’t sexually assault Tara Reade. Nobody’s actually confident that Creepy Uncle Hair Sniffer isn’t a rapist, they’re just pretending they are. I can understand saying “It’s possible but unproven”, but saying it’s false is so gross and dishonest.
They’re accusing Reade of lying for partisan reasons, when in reality that’s exactly what they are doing: they’re pretending they believe Handsy Joe Biden is incapable of shoving his fingers into a woman without her consent, and they are lying. Out of pure partisan loyalty.
~
It’s funny how refusing to support a literal dementia patient who has been credibly accused of rape for the world’s most powerful elected office is a very, very normal thing to do, yet people are acting like it’s bizarre and freakish.
~
Which looks more likely to you? (A) That Reade seeded a bunch of vicious lies about Senator Joe Biden in the 1990s with the intention of someday sabotaging his presidential bid in the distant future for some reason, or (B) that a powerful man sexually assaulted a woman?
~
It’s so weird how Joe Biden is a spent piece of leftover 1970s beltway flotsam made of plastic donor class dinner parties and AIPAC lobbying but everyone’s all pretending they like him as a person and stuff.
~
There are no fact-based and intellectually robust arguments for working within the establishment to manifest revolutionary agendas, but there are a lot of highly effective intellectually dishonest arguments for why it’s okay for you to pretend otherwise and go back to sleep.
~
“They destroyed the economy over a virus, but the narrative about the virus is completely fake!”
Perhaps. But so is the narrative about “the economy”.
~
Terence McKenna once said “We are led by the least among us. The least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary.” Can’t think of a better illustration of this than having Donald Trump versus Joe Biden competing for the most powerful elected office on the planet.
~
Hey remember when Trump provoked a missile retaliation that led to scores of injured US soldiers by assassinating Iran’s top military commander for no legitimate reason, lied about the whole thing, and then suffered no consequences or political repercussions of any kind? Good times.
~
Democrats are so fucking stupid and ridiculous that the Krassenstein brothers are still a thing.
~
All of humanity’s worst atrocities have been legal. Genocide. Slavery. Torture. The fact that you can squint at the imprisonment and extradition of a journalist for exposing US war crimes in such a way that makes it look “legal” does not mean it isn’t unforgivably evil.
~
It’s always about power. Power comes before everything, including profit, which is why you see escalations against nations who’d be very profitable to continue trading with and why critics of US foreign policy are attacked far more aggressively than critics of its domestic policy.
Manipulators understand that wealth control is a means to power and not an end in itself; that’s why you see things like Zuckerberg hurting his own profit margins by making changes to Facebook which make the platform less fun to use but shore up establishment narrative control.
Power trumps profit every time. Manipulators are driven ultimately by the desire to control as many humans as possible to the greatest extent possible. Money is a useful tool for accomplishing that, but in a pinch they’ll swap it out for military/police force or censorship etc.
Wealth is a narrative construct and can be gained or lost or made obsolete in a new narrative paradigm. Elite manipulators understand that it’s hard, nonconceptual control over hard, nonconceptual objects that gives them their actual alpha status over the rest of the humans.
~
“A newly democratized media environment has made it difficult for people to distinguish fact from fiction.”
“The ones who lied about Russiagate and all the wars.”
~
As a general rule, indie media should not attack other indie media. If you’re not punching up, you’re punching down.
~
People ask me “Well, what should we do? How do we fix this thing?” And of course my only possible answer is, “Do what I’m doing! Or your version of it.” Of course I’m doing the thing I think we should do to solve the problems of our species. Why would I be doing anything else?
~
Revolution is an inside job. This is not an egoically pleasing fact, but it is a fact. It’s much more fun for egoic mind to believe both the problem and the solution exists in other people, but in reality the changes you can make in yourself will have far greater effects on the world.
There are vast, vast depths within all of us, and we are capable of making vast, vast changes to those depths. We are in fact far more capable of doing this than we are of changing the outside world through force of will. And interestingly when we do this, we do change the world. And we do it far more efficaciously than we can by trying to will it to conform with the noises in our babbling thinky brain.
Get Ready For Slaughterhouse Robots To Ease America’s Meat Processing Crisis
America’s meat processing crisis, mainly triggered by labor shortages and plant closings due to coronavirus spread, is set to unleash a new wave of automation across plants to ease labor and health woes.
Bloomberg Law reports JBS SA, the world’s largest meat producer, is preparing to install robots in slaughterhouses to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 among human employees working on the production line.
JBS SA CFO Guilherme Cavalcanti recently said the Brazilian processing company expects to expand automation at its facilities across the world.
Cavalcanti said the adoption of automation started before the pandemic as labor tightened at US plants due to a decline in immigration sparked by the Trump administration. He said labor shortages have developed in the US as the virus infects workers and shutters plants.
Watch this video of meatpacking robots already in a JBS SA plant:
The fast-spreading virus has so far infected 4,900 workers (across the entire industry) and left 20 dead at 115 meatpacking plants across 19 states, according to CDC data from April 9-27.
In a JBS SA webinar on how it has handled its pandemic response, Cavalcanti said automation is more important than ever considering labor and health issues.
JBS SA has closed two US meatpacking plants due to the virus outbreak. There have been at least 22 plant closings in the US. We’ve noted, the closures have resulted in a 25% reduction in pork-processing capacity and beef by 10%. This has crushed farmers with overcapacity as they have limited options in selling livestock, resulting in mass cullings and plunging livestock spot prices. As for the consumer, soaring food inflation and shortages have been the result of plants reducing output or closing.
And at Zero Hedge, we have not been shy at telling you how things might pan out when it comes to a nation that is becoming automated, which means millions of jobs will be eliminated entirely by 2030. And, for some more uncomfortable truths, corporate America will speed up their adoption of automation and artificial intelligence, because robots can’t be infected by coronavirus.
The government is deceiving you. The pandemic is a ploy spread by the fake-news media, and if you care about your lives, go out and buy guns now.
That was the message of John McAfee. Between evil laughs and dark chucklings, the tech guru, tax fugitive, and general wild man shared his suspect views on the “state of the world” during COVID-19 last night at Virtual Blockchain Week.
“We are living in a paradigm the world has never seen before,” the 74-year-old crypto advocate and antivirus-software pioneer said, speaking from God knows where.
(He’s kept his whereabouts a secret since fleeing Belize in 2012 after suspicions grew that he killed his neighbor.)
“One-third of the planet is in lockdown,” he said, adding that most of those people are sitting at home, watching TV, and not doing much of anything, while the US government “pulls money out of thin air.” The situation is not sustainable, he argued.
He was especially disturbed by a recent $2 trillion stimulus package in the US, which appears to be backed by nothing other than the good graces of the US government.
“You can’t pull money out of the air and expect everything to be okay. Money is based on something called industry, production, service. We haven’t increased any of that,” he said, with a deep, unsettling chuckle. He predicted the money-printing will lead to a collapse of the US dollar.
It’s too late for crypto
Bitcoin and blockchain were meant to “save us from financial slavery, and from the overburdened government that creates the fiat currency that we are forced to use,” McAfee said.
But he doesn’t think crypto will save us this time.
“We are not going to jump into crypto,” he said, because it’s not easy enough to use.
“It is not like opening a bank account. You have to spend days understanding what it is and how it works.”
But as far as the markets go, he predicts that the price of Bitcoin will spike ahead of the halving event on May 12. He recalled that in 2016, the last halving event, there was a huge rise in the price of Bitcoin, and then a huge drop. And he believes history will repeat because the same people populate the cryptosphere, and they’re just as greedy as they were four years ago.
More people die of diarrhea
As far as the threat of COVID19, McAfee thinks the number of deaths are skewed because they are presented out of context. It is certainly not worth shutting down entire economies, he believes.
Repeatedly, he said more people die of diarrhea and of the flu. But both comparisons, common attempts to downplay the severity of the virus, have been widely dismissed as reckless by leading epidemiologists.
But the way McAfee, who is known for his drug use and paranoia, sees it—just before opening his talk, he jokingly commented he was getting ready to shoot up with heroin—we are being lied to by the government and stirred up by the media.
“If you use your head and common sense, you can see you are being deceived,” he said.
Due to the global shut down and the money printing, he believes dark times ahead for our species.
The solution?
“Go buy guns, and guns first,” he said.
“Because if you just have the food and you don’t have the guns, your neighbors are going to take it because your neighbors have the guns.”
And then McAfee, who appears to enjoy it when people think he is on edge, pulled out an AK-47 assault rifle and began praising its sturdiness.
“The US Doesn’t Own The UN” – Furious Beijing Blasts UN Mission’s Taiwan Tweets As “Political Manipulation”
President Trump is going all-in on antagonizing China as a crux of his 2020 campaign strategy (since clearly a large segment of his base, and many undecided voters, blame China for unleashing the virus on the world whether it came from a lab or not). And in keeping with the stepped-up antagonisms – since President Trump’s agreement to “cooperate” with President Xi to fight the virus is 100% meaningless – the US late Friday tweeted its support for Taiwan’s participation in the UN.
Kelly Craft
The tweet, sent by the US Mission to the UN, said the 193-member organization should allow space for “all voices” and welcome “a diversity of views and perspectives” to promote human rights. “Barring #Taiwan from setting foot on UN grounds is an affront not just to the proud Taïwanese people, but to UN principles,” it continued. It was retweeted by US Ambassador Kelly Craft, who succeeded Nikki Haley as US ambassador to the UN.
.@UN was founded to serve as a venue for all voices, a forum that welcomes a diversity of views & perspectives, & promotes human freedom. Barring #Taiwan from setting foot on UN grounds is an affront not just to the proud Taiwanese people, but to UN principles. #TweetForTaiwan
The U.S. believes firmly that #Taiwan belongs at the table when the world discusses #COVID19 and other threats to global health. Before 2017, Beijing didn’t object to Taiwan joining the World Health Assembly as an Observer. What’s changed? #TweetforTaiwan
Is the health of Taiwan’s 23 million people less important now than it was before 2017? Or, is the #PRC punishing Taiwan voters for freely choosing their own leader? #TweetforTaiwan
We all know Taiwan has long been committed to global health and boasts one of the finest health and research networks in the world, and that Taiwan promotes scientific cooperation and transparency on threats to #health. #TweetforTaiwan#TaiwanModel
Sympathy for Taiwan has been running high since the country masterfully handled the coronavirus outbreak. Another boost came when eporters exposed the WHO’s bias toward Taiwan and refusal to even acknowledge the de facto independent state (legally viewed in China as an errant province).
Never one to mince words, President Xi has threatened retaliatory violence against any nation state that dares assist Taiwan on the road to sovereignty, a role that the US under President Trump has consistently flirted with. Trump’s overall hawkishness toward China – a huge component of his political appeal – is why there’s little doubt that China is actively trying to hurt Trump’s election chances (we suspect their intelligence indicates Joe Biden’s level of cognitive decline is more serious than most Americans realize).
Unsurprisingly, China’s Mission to the UN – a body where China enjoys tremendous clout as a permanent voting member of the UN Security Council – responded that the US Mission was way out of line and should probably calm the fuck down before these twitter fingers turn to trigger fingers.
The spokesperson for China’s U.N. Mission called the U.S. Mission tweet “a serious violation” of the General Assembly resolution that gave China the U.N. seat, three U.S.-China joint communiques and China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
“It gravely interferes with China’s internal affairs and deeply hurts the feelings of the 1.4 billion Chinese people,” said the spokesperon, who was not named. “There is only one China in the world. The government of the People’s Republic China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”
China’s mission accused the United States of ”hypocrisy” for citing the U.N.’s welcome of diverse views while repeatedly using its power to issue visas to block or delay U.N. member states and civil society organizations from attending activities at the United Nations.
China strongly urged the United States to abide by the one-China principle, the three joint communiques between the two countries and the General Assembly resolution “and immediately stop backing the Taiwan region, politicizing, and undermining international response to the pandemic.”
“While the coronavirus is raging across the world, people of all countries are calling for international solidarity in fighting the pandemic,” the Chinese spokesperson said. “Political manipulation by the United States on an issue concerning China’s core interests will poison the atmosphere for cooperation of member states at a time when unity and solidarity is needed the most.”
And the icing on the cake: Global Times editor Hu Xijin whining that the US “doesn’t own” the UN.
The US, for its own agenda, often puts together Five Eyes Alliance and some other Western countries, pretending to be international community. It is just a small gang, with combined population much smaller than China’s or India’s. The UN is not a holding company of the US. pic.twitter.com/keHORO6v1p
Now get ready to do this all again tomorrow when the Pentagon sends a US carrier strike force through the Strait of Taiwan (we’re joking of course…but on a more serious note…it wouldn’t be so far-fetched).
Brace For A Monday Massacre: Buffett Liquidates All Airline Holdings As Berkshire Sees Another Leg Lower
Warren Buffett, who turns 90 in 4 months, had an unpleasant surprise for the permabullish Berkshire faithful during their annual pilgrimage to Omaha live-stream of Berkshire’s annual meeting: one month after Berkshire surprised investors by selling parts of its Delta and Southwest Airlines stakes – both of which had previously been above a 10% ownership level and speculation was rife that Berkshire could purchase an airline outright in the near future – the Oracle of Omaha said that, 4 years after Berkshire took major stakes in the four largest US airlines, he had liquidated the sold the entirety of its equity position in the U.S. airline industry which included $6.5 billion worth of stock in United, American, Southwest and Delta Airlines.
Assuring that Monday will be a bloodbath for Trannies (that would be the transportation stocks you perverts), Buffett justified his decision as follows: “The world has changed for the airlines. And I don’t know how it’s changed and I hope it corrects itself in a reasonably prompt way,” he said. “I don’t know if Americans have now changed their habits or will change their habits because of the extended period.”
But “I think there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”
“When we bought [airlines], we were getting an attractive amount for our money when investing across the airlines,” he said. “It turned out I was wrong about that business because of something that was not in any way the fault of four excellent CEOs. Believe me. No joy of being a CEO of an airline.”
““I don’t know that 3-4 years from now people will fly as many passenger miles as they did last year …. you’ve got too many planes.”
Realizing that he won’t be alive by the time a turnaround eventually happens, he clarified that he made the decision and that he lost money on his investments. “That was my mistake.”
Highlight: “The value of certain things have decreased,” Warren Buffett says. “Our airlines position was a mistake. Berkshire is worth less today because I took that position… There are other decisions like that.” #YFBuffettpic.twitter.com/W1ZqRzsfmv
Asked by CNBC’s Becky Quick to clarify if Berkshire had sold all of its airline holdings, Buffett answered “yes” and explained: “When we sell something, very often it’s going to be our entire stake: We don’t trim positions. That’s just not the way we approach it any more than if we buy 100% of a business. We’re going to sell it down to 90% or 80%.”
“The airline business — and I may be wrong and I hope I’m wrong — but I think it’s changed in a very major way,” Buffett said. “The future is much less clear to me.”
As Bloomberg reminds us, Buffett has had a complicated relationship with the airline industry over the years. After a troublesome investment in USAir, Buffett joked that he would call an 800 number to declare he was an “air-o-holic” if he ever got the urge to invest in airlines again. Then in 2016, Berkshire dove into the industry again, amassing stakes in the four largest airlines. His renewed faith in the industry prompted speculation that he might one day own one of the carriers.
There is a more simplistic explanation of Buffett’s style of investing at least in recent years: he will buy the stock of companies that engage in massive buybacks, such as Apple, even though his annual letter bashes companies that buybacks stocks, and he will dump all companies that halt buybacks, of which IBM is the most famous example. And since the quasi-bailed out airlines won’t be repurchasing stock for years and years to come, it was only a matter of time before Buffett dumped them.
It also means that Buffett may soon liquidate many more sector holdings, starting with the banks which have also suspended buybacks for the near future and may be forced to extend said suspension indefinitely unless there is a V-shaped recovery in the global economy. The banks will then be followed by consumer discretionary, railroads, and many more. In fact, it would explain why unlike 2008, Buffett has not only not been buying any stocks despite major “bargains” but has actually been aggressive in liquidating his holdings, hardly an endorsement of the broader market.
Amusingly, after wasting much digital ink bashing buybacks in his annual letters, Buffett went off on a rant defending buybacks during the annual videocast: “It’s very politically correct to be against buybacks now,” he said. “There’s a lot of crazy things being said about buybacks. Buybacks are so simple. It’s a way of distributing cash to shareholders,” especially when that shareholders is Warren Buffett. The “oracle” then noted that share repurchase programs should be executed in a price and need-sensitive manner, but “when the conditions are right, it should also be obvious to repurchase shares and there shouldn’t be the slightest taint to it anymore than there is to dividends.” Yes, well, good luck with all that Warren because for the next 2 years, you can kiss buybacks goodbye from all companies except perhaps the FAAMGs.
“If we like a business, we’re going to buy as much of it as we can and keep it as long as we can,” he added. “And when we change our mind we don’t take half measures.”
His comments Saturday afternoon came after Berkshire reported a $50 billion Q1 loss and only nibbled at equities during the violent stock market rout in March, mostly on his investment portfolio, even as the conglomerate’s cash stockpile rose to a record $137BN (more net cash than AAPL has) and up $10 billion from the $127 billion it reported at the end of 2019.
As we reported earlier, the company spent just $1.8 billion buying stocks and just $1.7 billion repurchasing Berkshire Hathaway shares during the first quarter of 2020, suggesting not only that Buffett could not find any of his hallmark bargain, value opportunities in the market sell-off, which took the S&P 500 down more than 30%, but that Buffett sees the current market rebound as nothing more than a dead cat bounce as he prepares to snap up the real bargains after the next crash.
Explaining why he didn’t repurchase more Berkshire Hathaway shares during the sell-off in the first quarter, Buffett said “the price has not been at a level where it really feels way better to us than other things, including the option value of money, to step up in a big way.” Which is a long way of saying it remains too expensive.
Worse, explaining why he still hasn’t made a major acquisition despite the recent 35% drop in the market, the billionaire investor said “we have not done anything because we haven’t seen anything that attractive,” adding that “we are not doing anything big obviously. We are willing to do something very big. I mean you could come to me on Monday morning with something that involved $30, or $40 billion or $50 billion. And if we really like what we are seeing, we would do it.”
The fact that he hasn’t done it yet means one thing: Buffett, or rather the banks that advise the soon-to-be-90 year old investor are convinced that a next leg lower in stocks is coming, and he should conserve his ‘dry powder’ for when it comes.
And what may be scariest for the bulls, is that in justifying his lack of buying, Buffett practically blamed the Fed, saying that “the Fed acted too quickly and too strongly for Berkshire to may any big deals right now.”
Translation: according to none other than the most admired investor in the world, the Fed’s unprecedented bailout of capital markets has not only disconnected prices from fundamentals but has led to a market so overvalued that there are still no bargains despite the recent crash (and subsequent dead cat bounce).
We were all waiting for Buffett to buy preferred stock in the airlines or Boeing as he did in some banks in ‘08. He didn’t. Does it mean he thinks this crisis is far worse than the Great Recession and not easily reversible? My bet is absolutely yes.
And now we prepare for the Monday bloodbath in the trannies, and perhaps across the entire market, as investors – notorious for being unable to think for themselves and always blindly following the actions of a 90-year-old man – furiously imitate what Berkshire has already done. And, if the bulls are unlucky, the selling could be the catalyst for the next major market drop… which would of course be delightfully ironic if Buffett’s own actions catalyze the crash that he hopes to benefit from and finally put his record cash hoard to use.
