Morgan Stanley: The Bear Market Started In January 2018 And Is About To Get Worse

One month after Morgan Stanley cut its allocation to stocks to the lowest on record, and less than two weeks after the bank’s chief equity strategist Michael Wilson laid out graphically why he thought stocks were about to crash just as the S&P was hitting new all time highs…

… Wilson was happy to take his victory lap and in a report this morning in which he declared that not only is “the bear alive and kicking”, with the S&P reversing perfectly off Morgan Stanley’s previous resistance level, and sliding more than half way to the current support of 2,700…

… but went on to say that the bear market actually started all the way back in late 2017 when the bull market for global equities ended, and has been drifting even lower since.

And while many market strategists have been fixated on the S&P 500 (the highest quality and most defensive equity market in the world) making new all-time highs this year, Wilson would point out that almost 80 percent of all major indices we track have not made new highs and are more than 10 percent below those highs. This, to the Morgan Stanley strategist, is a very different picture than what was observed in January 2018 when virtually every major equity index around the world was at an all-time high and overbought and why the bank made its call for a cyclical bear market to begin during 2018. Indeed, the chart above shows a striking difference between the 2016-17 period (a bull market) and then 2018-19, which to Wilson, “looks like an incomplete cyclical bear.” And no, the S&P 500 does not look much different, having gone nowhere since January 2018.

Other indicators seem to suggest that every burst of enthusiasm is nothing more than a squeeze in a sweeping bear. One is Morgan Stanley’s Equity Risk Indicator (ERI), a gauge of US equity market sentiment and positioning, which has not reached “exuberance” territory for 18 months.

As Wilson explains, “this trend is consistent with the persistently negative sentiment seen during the bear markets of 2008-2009 and 2015-2016 and helps to reinforce our view that we have been in a rolling bear market since early 2018.” A key difference between today’s environment and those periods is that the market has made multiple new highs since January 2018 while sentiment has been depressed. This reinforces the notion that, below the benchmark level, there has been little confidence, and returns have been difficult to generate. And as MS further notes, “the pessimistic sentiment/positioning environment we have been in is a reflection of the challenging asset allocation backdrop that has persisted since early 2018.”

Wilson also finds it interesting that individual investor sentiment – as measured by the AAII Survey Bull vs. Bear Spread – has meaningfully diverged from consumer sentiment. Despite the fact that the market is still near all-time highs and consumer sentiment has remained elevated, individual investors have expressed a more pessimistic tone. This is in line with what MS has been pounding the table on in recent months, as the bank believes that “late 2017/early 2018 was the euphoric top for this cycle and do not expect… individual investor sentiment to return to euphoric levels for a sustained period of time before the end of this cycle.“

Curiously, it may have been none other than the Fed that vindicated the Morgan Stanley bearish call. As Wilson writes, explaining why he thought recently the S&P would fail to break out – as has been now confirmed – whereas many commentators have either blamed the Fed’s poor communication or the re-escalation of trade tensions, Morgan Stanley thinks it is more about the market simply focusing back on fundamentals and risks that were always there. And as noted on many prior occasions, a Fed pause is always bullish for stocks but once the Fed actually starts cutting rates, it typically spells trouble because cuts usually accompany the end of the cycle, not a mid cycle pause. All one has to do is look back at the last two cycles to see that once the Fed cut it did not bode well for equity markets.

That’s precisely what appears to be happening this time around…. but don’t blame the Fed: according to MS, Powell simply reversed his position over the past 9 months because the outlook for the economy, both here and abroad, deteriorated significantly, and as a result, Wilson believes that many investors are too complacent about the risks to the US economy from the ongoing corporate profits recession.

While trade tensions are weighing on corporate confidence and the various Purchasing Manager Indices (PMIs), we think the deterioration in corporate profits and margins is the bigger driver.

Indeed, after the Morgan Stanley Business Conditions Index plunged back in May, the outlook for corporate confidence and PMIs has failed to improve As the most recent Morgan Stanley Business Conditions Index (MSBCI) published last week revealed, after a snap back in June, it moved sharply lower again to the second-lowest reading since the last recession.

This is concerning because as we discussed two months ago, there is a very close relationship between the MSBCI and the PMIs. Worse, there is an even tighter relationship between the MSBCI Composite Index and FY2 earnings revisions – the two have a correlation around 80%. A quick look at the two series suggests downward earnings revisions have yet to bottom and may retest the lows of the 2015/16 global recession, and further deterioration in the MSBCI would suggest even more downside to earnings, which likely does not bode well for stocks in the near term.

Of course, with both sentiment and earnings now likely to suffer continued downward pressure, it only underscore the Morgan Stanley proposition that a bear market started as long as two years ago.  Indeed, when looking at the US markets alone, the S&P 600 (small caps) and S&P 400 (mid caps) have both failed to make new highs this year and are both more than 10 percent below those levels from last September. The same is true for the even broader Value Line Index.

Meanwhile, only 5 out of the 11 S&P 500 sectors have made new highs this year, 3 of which are defensive (Utilities, Staples, and REITs). The other 2 are Technology and Consumer Discretionary, and while growth potential for many companies in the Technology sector is clear, the potential for most stocks in Consumer Discretionary is less clear. The sector’s performance has also been skewed by Amazon, which is more a technological disrupter than a good read on the consumer.

* * *

But perhaps the most convincing evidence for those who question if we are still in the midst of a cyclical bear market – according to Wilson – is the fact that long-term Treasury bonds have defeated the best equity market in the world over the past 18 months, especially since September. The technical pattern in the chart below looks incomplete, suggesting further downside to come for the S&P 500 versus long-term Treasuries. However, on a longer-term basis, this relationship holding the uptrend supports a somewhat more optimistic view that a long-tailed secular bull is still intact, even if we are still working through a cyclical bear market in that larger context. The question then is whether bonds will outperforming equities to such an extent that the red support line is breached, in which case the support for a secular bull market will slowly fade away as the Albert Edwards “Ice Age” takes its place.

In any event, as the MS strategist notes, “we suspected this bear market would be an unsatisfying one – to the bears – as it often feels like a bull market even if the sector leadership and breadth doesn’t support the claim we are in a bull market.”

So in conclusion to its latest bearish screed, Morgan Stanley repeats that its point is that “the rolling bear is still alive and kicking, leaving the average index and stock still well below its highs from last year.” As a result, it makes sense for investors to have crowded into defensive and growth areas in the presence of rapidly decelerating economic growth. And while Wilson and his colleagues have leaned defensively in their sector recommendations, they remain skeptical that “this rolling bear market is finished and think it will complete much like the first wave did last year – meaning many growth areas may be vulnerable.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YLOsaX Tyler Durden

Everyone’s A Conspiracy Theorist, Whether They Know It Or Not

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Plutocratic propaganda outlet MSNBC has just run a spin segment on the breaking news that the medical examiner’s determination of the cause of Jeffrey Epstein’s death is “pending further information”.

“Our sources are still saying that it looks like suicide, and this is going to set conspiracy theorists abuzz I fear,” said NBC correspondent Ken Dilanian.

“NBC News has been hearing all day long that there are no indications of foul play, and that this looks like a suicide and that he hung himself in his cell.”

Dilanian, who stumbled over the phrase “conspiracy theorists” in his haste to get it in the first soundbyte, is a known asset of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a well-documented fact. A 2014 article in The Intercept titled “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man” reveals email exchanges obtained via Freedom of Information Act request between Dilanian and CIA public affairs officers which “show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication.” There is no reason to give Dilanian the benefit of the doubt that this cozy relationship has ended, so anything he puts forward can safely be dismissed as CIA public relations.

When I mentioned Dilanian’s CIA ties on MSNBC’s Twitter video, MSNBC deleted their tweet and then re-shared it without mentioning Dilanian’s name. Here is a screenshot of the first tweet followed by an embedded link to their current one (which I’ve archived just in case):

Up until the news broke that Epstein’s autopsy has been unable to readily confirm suicide, mass media headlines everywhere have been unquestioningly blaring that that was known to have been the cause of the accused sex trafficker’s death. This despite the fact that the FBI’s investigation has been explicitly labeling it an “apparent suicide”, and despite the fact that Epstein is credibly believed to have been involved in an intelligence-tied sexual blackmail operation involving many powerful people, any number of whom stood plenty to gain from his death.

So things are moving in a very weird way, and people are understandably weirded out. The response to this from mass media narrative managers has, of course, been to berate everyone as “conspiracy theorists”.

“Jeffrey Epstein: How conspiracy theories spread after financier’s death” reads a BBC headline.

“Epstein Suicide Conspiracies Show How Our Information System Is Poisoned” reads one from the New York Times.

“Conspiracy Theories Fly Online in Wake of Epstein Death” warns The Wall Street Journal.

“Financier Epstein’s Death Disappoints Victims, Launches Conspiracy Theories” reads the headline from US government-funded Voice of America.

These outlets generally match Dilanian’s tone in branding anyone who questions the official story about Epstein’s death as a raving lunatic. Meanwhile, normal human beings all across the political spectrum are expressing skepticism on social media about the “suicide” narrative we’re all being force-fed by the establishment narrative managers, many of them prefacing their skepticism with some variation on the phrase “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but…”

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist but there are an awful lot of very powerful people who would like to see this Epstein thing go away. Is anyone investigating the guard on duty?” tweeted actor Patricia Heaton.

“I am not into conspiracy theories. But Epstein had destructive information on an extraordinary number of extraordinarily powerful people. It is not easy to commit suicide in prison. Especially after being placed on suicide watch. Especially after already allegedly trying,” tweeted public defender Scott Hechinger.

Journalist Abi Wilkinson summed up the silliness of this widespread preface very nicely, tweeting, “‘“I’m not a conspiracy theorist’ is such a weird assertion when you think about it, the idea there’s a binary between believing all conspiracies and flat out rejecting the very concept of conspiracy in all circumstances.”

Indeed, I think it’s fair to say that everyone is a conspiracy theorist if they’re really honest with themselves.

Not everyone believes that the official stories about 9/11 and the JFK assassination are riddled with plot holes or what have you, but I doubt that anyone who really sat down and sincerely grappled with the question “Do powerful people conspire?” would honestly deny it. Some are just more self-aware than others about the self-evident reality that powerful people conspire all the time, and it’s only a question of how and with whom and to what extent.

The word “conspire” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement”. No sane person would deny that this is a thing that happens, nor that this is likely a thing that happens to some extent among the powerful in their own nation. This by itself is a theory about conspiracy per definition, and it accurately applies to pretty much everyone. Since it applies to pretty much everyone, the label is essentially meaningless, either as a pejorative or as anything else.

The meaningless of the term has been clearly illustrated by Russiagate, whose adherents react with sputtering outrage whenever anyone points out that they’re engaged in a conspiracy theory, despite the self-evident fact that that’s exactly what it is: a theory about a band of powerful Russian conspirators conspiring with the highest levels of the US government. Their objection is not due to a belief that they’re not theorizing about a conspiracy, their objection is due to the fact that a highly stigmatized label that they’re accustomed to applying to other people has been applied to them. The label is rejected because its actual definition is ignored to the point of meaninglessness.

The problem has never been with the actual term “conspiracy theory”; the problem has been with its deliberate and completely meaningless use as a pejorative. The best way to address this would be a populist move to de-stigmatize the label by taking ownership of it. Last month Cornell University professor Dave Callum tweeted, “I am a ‘conspiracy theorist’. I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don’t think so, then you are what is called ‘an idiot’. If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called ‘a coward’.” This is what we all must do. The debate must be forcibly moved from the absurd question of whether or not conspiracies are a thing to the important question of which conspiracy theories are valid and to what degree.

And we should probably hurry. Yahoo News reported earlier this month that the FBI recently published an intelligence bulletin describing “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists” as a growing threat, and this was before the recent spate of US shootings got establishment narrative-makers pushing for new domestic terrorism laws.

This combined with the fact that we can’t even ask questions about extremely suspicious events like Jeffrey Epstein’s death without being tarred with this meaningless pejorative by the mass media thought police means we’re at extreme risk of being shoved into something far more Orwellian in the near future.

*  *  *

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MXiGk1 Tyler Durden

Huge Blast At Pro-Iran Militia Base Rips Through Baghdad Near ‘Green Zone’

Billows of smoke and fire are rising above Baghdad’s skyline after a massive explosion has reportedly engulfed a weapons depot said to be controlled by a pro-Iranian militia in the Iraqi capital. 

Stunning footage of the explosion’s aftermath in Dora neighborhood is circulating, which is not far from the sprawling US embassy, which has itself over the past months been targeted in sporadic mortar attacks. 

According to The Times of Israel, “Local media reports that the weapons storehouse is owned by the Sayyid of Martyrs Battalions, an Iraqi Shiite militia supported by Tehran.”

Unconfirmed reports suggest the weapons storage facility may have been targeted by ISIS terror cells.

Locals are currently evacuating the area as ammunition explodes in the early evening sky, sending rockets and projectiles flying in all directions and into residential homes.

Sky News Arabia reported that incoming mortar shells set off sirens in the area around the US embassy in Baghdad, known as the Green Zone. — Times of Israel

Officials with the Baghdad Operations Command posted a social media statement saying  “explosion occurred because of the piling up of ammunition inside the Saqr military base in southern Baghdad.”

Sirens are going off, with further reports that shells have possibly landed at the US diplomatic compound in the city.

A giant mushroom shaped cloud of black smoke can currently be observed hanging over the southern part of Baghdad. Videos show scenes of what sounds like a war zone.

developing…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MgYI4i Tyler Durden

Who Is To Blame For #ClintonBodyCount Trending? Russian Trolls, Of Course!

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Less than a month ago, when billionaire and accused pedophile Jeffery Epstein attempted to “commit suicide,” the hashtag “Clinton Body Count” began trending. Well, it’s happened again and the United States government is intent on blaming it on Russian trolls for a second time.

The establishment just can’t handle it when people begin to figure things out for themselves, so the desperate attempts to control the narrative once again surface.  And as if history repeating itself has become this year’s anthem, once again, the powers that shouldn’t be are blaming Russian trolls for the trending #ClintonBodyCount.

This newest hashtag was triggered by Epstein’s death by “suicide.”  Yet anyone with even the smallest amount of logical reasoning knew that if there was any chance Epstein’s arrest would implicate anyone in power in the government (past or present) that he would not live long.

The recent death of the disgraced financier and convicted sex trafficker has set social media ablaze, RT accurately reported. The fact that his “apparent suicide,” as authorities keep calling it pending an investigation, took place just a day after a trove of unsealed court documents revealed his ties to the highest ranks of the U.S. establishment – including President Donald Trump and former president Bill Clinton – only added fuel to the furor.

Not long after #ClintonBodyCount began trending, #TrumpBodyCount popped up too as a rival. Finally, the left and the right united on the fact that Epstein’s suicide was anything but.

Yet that’s about the only thing they could agree on.  Twitter chose sides, and as their own analytics have shown, more people think this a problem for Bill Clinton.

The establishment, however, quickly took to blaming the Russian trolls, as anticipated.

But he was not the first to drag Moscow into the spotlight of blame wither. Earlier, anMSNBC host, Joe Scarborough, was mocked for claiming that Epstein’s death definitely looks like something the omnipresent hand of the Kremlin would do, according to RT.

It is becoming apparent that the establishment is losing control of their own narrative. The propaganda is failing and when it does, people will be waking up to what they’ve been living under the boot of for a long time.

In “Parasites on Parade,” Larken Rose (author of “The Most Dangerous Superstition” and “The Iron Web”) uses his own direct experiences with bureaucratic and judicial stupidity, intrusion and corruption to illustrate why, everywhere and at all times, in every situation and at every level, government sucks! This snarky, flippant look at the mentality and tactics of various state busybodies also provides an important lesson regarding the true nature of political “authority,” and the problems and abuses it naturally creates.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31G2AzD Tyler Durden

San Jose Mayor Proposes Requiring Gun Owners To Buy Liability Insurance

In what could become a trend for cities impact by mass shootings, Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose – where 19-year-old Santino William Legan killed 3 (including 2 children) and wounded 16 others at the Gilroy Garlic Festival last month – has proposed a new city ordinance that would require firearm owners to either carry liability insurance or pay a fee to help cover the public costs of gun violence, Axios reports

San Jose, the tenth-largest city in the country, is the first to propose a “harm reduction” reduction policy aimed at stopping gun violence (though whether these measures will definitively end gun violence very much remains to be seen).

If the city council approves the measure, all gun owners in the city will need to purchase private liability insurance. If for whatever reason gun owners can’t purchase said equipment, they could instead pay the above-mentioned fee, which would go into a pool intended to cover the costs of police and emergency services personnel related to gun violence.

Adding a characteristically Silicon Valley twist, to protect the privacy of gun owners, the city is considering using blockchain technology to get around a state law prohibiting local governments from establishing gun registries (we’re sure all of the libertarian crypto nerds would love to see that).

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo

In an interview with Axios, Liccardo said insurance can incentivize safe behavior and discourage risky behavior.

“Those are all decisions that are influenced in different ways by price signals in the insurance markets,” he said. “In many cases we can say insurance has saved thousands of lives because drivers recognize, for example, the benefit of having a discount for an airbag.”

Liccardo said his plan is an attempt to “try to find ways we can reduce the harm of gun violence without infringing on recognized Second Amendment rights.”

Proposing liability insurance for gun owners isn’t anything new: In the past, these proposals have been unsuccessfully pitched at both the national and the state level.

Opponents say requiring liability coverage would infringe on Second Amendment rights by creating a new financial burden for gun-owners (Licccardo disagrees). The insurance industry has argued that insurance shouldn’t apply to intentional criminal behavior.

But Liccardo said the public safety and health arguments should ultimately trump these concerns, since the state already taxes risky behaviors like smoking. And, of course, automobile insurance is a thing. As Liccardo envisions it, his proposal would see insurance provide coverage for accidental discharge of the gun, and for theft of firearms. .

He’s already starting conversations with California mayors and state legislators, despite the fact that the city council has yet to approve the plan. Though, in deep blue Northern California, we’d wager it has a very high chance of passing.

The only question is, will more moderate cities like Dayton, Ohio, the location of one of last week’s shootings follow suit?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33x3n7q Tyler Durden

5 Theories About The “Death” Of Jeffrey Epstein

Authored by Daisy Luther and Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper blog,

Nobody was really surprised when it was reported last weekend that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his jail cell of an apparent “suicide.” And also, nobody really believed the official story. I find it heartening to know that the American people no longer swallow the stories without question.

The results of our informal poll over the weekend show that hardly any of our readers believe that an egomaniacal narcissist like Epstein would have voluntarily killed himself.

You can still pop over to go vote in this poll.

So what happened to Jeffrey Epstein? Here are 5 theories aside from the official story.

1. Russia, of course.

The Russia hysteria that swept through the election of Donald Trump shows little sign of abating and some people even think that the Russians were responsible for the death of Epstein.

Joe Scarborough, host of Morning Joe on MSNBC got the ball rolling with this offhand tweet:

After a whole bunch of outraged tweets, it turned out he was just kidding.

Marco Rubio thinks the Russians are involved but only because the Russians are blaming the Clintons.

This leads us to our next theory.

2. The Clintons, of course.

There are a lot of powerful people who wouldn’t want the world hearing what Epstein had to say about their unsavory sexual predilections. Topping that list could be a guy with frequent flier miles on the Lolita Express.

A trending hashtag on Twitter right now is #ClintonBodyCount. And we’ve got to be honest, there are a lot and we mean a lot of bodies that have fallen in the wake of Bill and Hil, so many that the term “Arkancide” is listed in Urban Dictionary. Totally unrelated, we’re sure, despite what this book on Amazon or this documentary says.

RationalWiki, recently updated with information on how the Clintons didn’t kill Jeffrey Epstein, also says they didn’t kill these people either.

And there was fury on Twitter (when isn’t there fury on Twitter?) when President Trump retweeted this theory.

It’s complete with video.

But don’t worry, none of this Clinton stuff could possibly be true because Snopes has debunked it.

Instead, it’s obviously another political leader. One who tried to point the finger at the always-innnocent-and-benevolent Clintons.

3. Trump, of course.

#TrumpBodyCount is trending on Twitter, and the people making such Tweets are accusing Donald Trump of playing a role in Epstein’s supposed death.

The people writing those Tweets seem to be ignoring the substantial documented ties Bill Clinton has to Epstein. Yes, Trump had a past relationship with Epstein, as evidenced by photographs and comments Trump made about Epstein in a 2002 interview: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Donald Trump reportedly cut off contact with Epstein in 2004 after a real estate squabble. It has also been reported that Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago (where Virginia Roberts Giuffre allegedly met Epstein when she was 16). Last month, Trump said he knew Epstein “like everybody in Palm Beach knew him” and “I had a falling out with him a long time ago, I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years. I wasn’t a fan…I was not a fan of his…I feel very badly actually for Secretary Acosta.”

However, Bradley J. Edwards, the lawyer for several of Epstein’s alleged victims, said in an interview that Trump was the only high-powered person who was willing to talk to him when Edwards served subpoenas and notices to high-profile individuals connected to Epstein.

That being said, one can’t help but wonder why Trump selected Alexander Acosta as his Secretary of Labor and William Barr as Attorney General, considering their questionable ties to Epstein. Of course, none of this means that Trump or his administration had anything to do with Epstein’s death.

4. The Mossad killed him, of course.

You’ve probably heard the theory that Epstein may have an operator for the Mossad, getting all sorts of dirt on powerful perverts in order to strongly urge them to comply when asked for favors in the future. Dagney Taggart reported:

The Epstein case is filled with bizarre details that are difficult to unravel.

Maurene Comey, daughter of fired FBI Director James Comey, is reportedly one of the prosecutors in the Jeffrey Epstein case. She is an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the SDNY who has worked on cases involving alleged racketeering, drugs and weapons offenses, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, and robbery.

Robert Mueller led the FBI at the time of the original charges against Epstein.

There are additional bizarre details in the Epstein story, as Michael Krieger explains in The Jeffrey Epstein Rabbit Hole Goes a Lot Deeper Than You Think. Krieger works through a series of connections (to read them, click on the link to his article – his points are made in a series of Tweets) and eventually forms a theory that Epstein’s entire operation was designed to ensnare the rich and powerful – and that the billionaire may be funded by Israeli spy agency Mossad. (source)

Another interesting source believes that not only was Epstein Mossad, but that the Mossad could be involved in a cover-up surrounding his death. (Or “death” if you prefer.) Philip Giraldi, a former CIA operative writes:

As a former intelligence officer myself, there is little doubt in my mind that what Epstein did and how he did it was an intelligence operation. There is no other viable explanation for his filming of prominent politicians and celebrities having sex with young girls. And as for the question of whom Epstein might have been working for, the most likely answer is Mossad. The CIA would have had no interest in compiling dossiers on prominent Americans, but American movers and shakers like Bill Clinton, with his 26 trips on the Lolita Express, former Governor Bill Richardson, or former Senator George Mitchell are precisely the types of “agents of influence” that the Mossad would seek to coerce or even blackmail into cooperation…

…Epstein is now dead. But the key questions go unanswered including was he a spy for Israel? And what about the Krischer-Dershowitz connection that kept him from being punished commensurate with his crimes? Did those instructions also come from Israel or from its friends in the U.S. Justice Department? Will the three simultaneous investigations currently taking place even continue and ask the right questions now that the target of the investigation is gone? Given the high stakes in the game, quite likely, there will be a cover-up both of how Epstein lived and how he died. We the public will never know what Epstein was all about. (source)

5. He’s not actually dead, of course.

Is there a chance that Epstein is not actually dead?

Maybe he’s in witness protection. A whole lot of people have BIG reasons to want him dead. Maybe one of his excessively wealthy and powerful friends helped him escape and he’s somewhere drinking mojitos and laughing at the coverage of his untimely demise.

There are some mysteries about how he could have managed to commit suicide or be murdered in his recent situation.

  1. He tried to commit suicide 2 weeks ago.

  2. Or maybe a bodybuilder-murderer-ex-cop-cellmate tried to take Epstein out in a hit although the bodybuilder-murderer-ex-cop-cellmate says he saved him.

  3. He was taken off suicide watch despite allegedly trying to kill himself two weeks previously. It is now being reported that he was removed from suicide watch at the request of his attorneys.

  4. “Epstein” was carted out in an open body bag so the paparazzi could get a good look at someone “who looked like Epstein” being dead. Specifically, “A gurney carrying a man who looked like Epstein was wheeled into New York Downtown Hospital around 7:30 a.m. A call for a reported cardiac arrest came in at 6:38 a.m., Fire Department sources said,” reported NY Post.

  5. The autopsy is apparently complete but the coroner apparently requires more information. “The New York City medical examiner’s office said Sunday that it had completed an autopsy on the financier and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein but that it needed more information before determining the cause of death,” reported NBC News.

So maybe, just maybe, the guy isn’t actually dead but in the witness protection program, because if ever a witness would require protection, it would be this one. Is it possible that the DoJ wants to build a case against even bigger fish than Epstein?

Or maybe he is free as a bird in the most outrageous jailbreak in American history. The world my never know.

What do you think happened to Jeffrey Epstein?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MXbpAM Tyler Durden

Pakistan Mobilizing Forces At Kashmir Base Near Line Of Control: Report

India’s Business Standard is reporting a major mobilization of Pakistani military forces underway along the border with India, citing government sources which talked to Asia’s ANI news agency.

The contested Kashmir region is on edge following India last week taking the unprecedented step of revoking Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) autonomous status amid a military crackdown involving deployment of tens of thousands of Indian troops to the region. 

“Three C-130 transport aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force were used on Saturday to ferry equipment to their Skardu air base opposite the Union Territory of Ladakh. The Indian agencies concerned are keeping a close eye on the movement of Pakistanis along the border areas,” sources told ANI. 

Skardu Airport, Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan, file image via Pinterest.

The report describes that the significant uptick in military logistical activity along the border is likely in support of fighter aircraft operations involving Islamabad moving its China-made advanced JF-17 fighter jets to the Skardu air field. 

Though the report was neither confirmed nor denied by Pakistan’s military, it could indicate preparations for a military exercise along the border involving the Air Force and Army designed as a show of strength amid PM Imran Khan condemning Indian troop build-up across the border and removal of J&K’s special status. 

The day after on Monday a week ago India revoked Article 370, which is legally and historically what assured a high degree autonomy for the Indian administered Muslim-majority state, Pakistan’s army vowed to “go to any extent” to support Kashmiris amid an Indian military crackdown. “Pakistan Army firmly stands by the Kashmiris in their just struggle to the very end,” said General Qamar Javed Bajwa after an initial meeting of Pakistan’s leadership in response to the crisis.

“We are prepared and shall go to any extent to fulfill our obligations in this regard,” he added, without specifying what form this might take. At the same time Pakistan’s foreign minister had immediately informed the United Nations it is prepared to act in response to the “critical situation”. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z26zV8 Tyler Durden

Is Global Warming Really An Existential Threat?

Via Cliff Mass Weather and Climate blog,

During the recent presidential debate, a number of candidates suggested that global warming represents an existential threatto mankind, and thus requires dramatic and immediate action.

Governor Jay Inslee has been particularly generous in the use of this term, but he is not alone.  Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have said the same thing, as have several media outlets and environmental interest groups.

Some of these folks also claim that the window for action on climate change is closing–Jay Inslee suggests that the next president will be the last able to take effective steps.  Others suggest 10 or 12 years.

But are these existential threat claims true?  That is what we will examine in this blog.

An existential threat is one that threatens the very existence of mankind.    Something that is a simply a challenge or an inconvenience is not an existential threat. An existential threat must have the potential to undermine the very viability of human civilization.

As described below, global warming is a serious problem and its impacts will be substantial—but in no way does it seriously threaten our species or human civilization.  And with reasonable mitigation and adaptation,  mankind will continue to move forward—reducing poverty, living healthier lives, and stabilizing our population.

What do current climate models tell us?  These models are run under specific scenarios of emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (see figure).   In one, RCP8.5, we simply continue doing what we are doing, with escalating use of coal and oil.  Not much renewable energy.    Many believe this scenario is too pessimistic.  Much more reasonable is RCP 4.5, which has modestly increased emissions through 2040, declining after 2050.  I suspect this one will be closer to reality.

The implication of these emissions on global temperature is shown below based on a collection of climate models (CMIP-5).  Under the extreme scenario, the earth warms by about 4C, but for the reasonable one (RCP4.5), global warming is about 2C (3.6F).  This warming will not be uniform, being greater in the polar regions, less over the eastern oceans.

You will note the temperature rise in RCP 4.5 is relatively steady through around 2045 and then starts to gradually plateau out.  No sharp transitions, no falling off of a cliff, no sudden catastrophes.

I have run a large collection of high resolution climate simulations over the Northwest, driven by the aggressive RCP 8.5 scenario.   As shown for Seattle’s mean annual temperature below, there is a steady rise, again with no sudden changes that would be hard to adapt to.    Most NW folks will want to purchase an air conditioner for summer, but there is no threat to our existence, and winters will be more pleasant.

But what do official international and national evaluations project for the economic future?

First, let’s check the conclusions of the highly respect Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which  provides a consensus view of many scientists and nations. Their analysis (SR15, Chapter 3) quoted a paper by Yohe (2017) that found a U.S. GDP loss of 1.2% per degree of warming,   So with a 2 C global warming associated with RCP4.5,  we are talking about a 2.4% loss of national income in 2100.  Not a 2.4% loss from today’s levels, but 2.4% less of the substantially greater income in 2100.

What about the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment, a document heavily cited by the U.S. environmental community?  Their analysis is that the damage to the U.S. economy in 2100 would be about a 1% loss (see below)  This is not a 1% loss from the current U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), but a 1% loss of the substantially great GDP in 2100.    We will be much richer in 2100,  and will lose 1 % of our GDP  because of global warming.  Doesn’t sound like the end of civilization, does it?

W. D. Nordhaus, who won a Nobel Prize in economics for his study of the economic impacts of climate change, examined a large number of studies regarding the impacts of global warming on the world’s economy (see below).  He and his co-author (A Moffat) found that a 2C increase in global temperatures would result in 0-1% damage to the world economy in 2100. Doubling the warming would only increase the damage to around 3%.  Again, no existential threat.

Reading these numbers and considering the many reports backing them up, there clearly is no existential threat to either the U.S. or mankind from global warming, leaving one to wonder why are so many politicians, environmental activists, and lots of media are spreading this existential threat line.

And the above studies are not really considering the potential for major technical breakthroughs in energy generation (e.g., fusion), renewables energy sources, or carbon removal form the atmosphere (sequestration).   I believe that such advances are inevitable, just as no one in 1950 expected that 2000 would bring personal computers, cell phones, and more.

You also have to wonder whether scientists, politicians, and environmental folks really believe the existential threat warnings they throw around.   Many talk the talk, but most don’t walk the walk.

Presidential candidates with little chance of securing the nomination are flying back and forth around the country, resulting in enormous carbon footprints.   Climate scientists fly more for work and pleasure than anyone.   Many environmentalists oppose nuclear power, one of the technologies that could produce massive carbon-free energy.  And several local Washington State environmental groups opposed a revenue-neutral, bipartisan carbon tax initiative (I-732)

Global warming is a real issue and we are going to slowly warm our planet, resulting in substantial impacts (like less snowpack in the Cascades, increased river flooding in November, drier conditions in the subtropics, loss of Arctic sea ice).    But the world will be a much richer place in 2100 and mankind will find ways to adapt to many of the changes.   And there is a good chance we will develop the technologies to reverse the increasing trend in greenhouse gases and eventually bring CO2 concentrations down to previous levels.

Global warming does not offer an existential threat to mankind, and politicians and decision makers only undermine their credibility and make effective action less likely by their hype and exaggeration.  And their unfounded claims of future catastrophe prevents broad national consensus and hurts vulnerable people who are made anxious and fearful.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MWRnGI Tyler Durden

Reporter Who Broke Epstein Story: ‘He Manipulated His Jailers To Get Off Suicide Watch’

In her first interview since Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell of an apparent suicide Saturday morning, Julie K Brown, the Miami Herald investigative reporter whose reporting led to the latest bevy of criminal charges against the convicted pedophile, told MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle said she believes Epstein manipulated the prison staff to have himself removed from suicide watch and have his roommate removed from his cell…giving him the opportunity to take his own life.

Julie K Brown

Ruhle’s first question to Brown – who appeared on a panel with a pair of criminal justice experts – was how did she react to the news of Epstein’s death.

“I just couldn’t believe it and I just said ‘no, that couldn’t be right’.…everybody thought the same thing ‘wasn’t he under suicide watch and how could somebody under suicide watch commit suicide?’ We now know that he manipulated things to get off of suicide watch.”

You think he manipulated things to get off of suicide watch?

“I do. It doesn’t surprise me that he was able to manipulate things to get more time to himself.”

“And as for his victims…this represents another example to them of how the criminal justice system is broken.”

This certainly is going to fuel the conspiracy theories it’s going to be interesting to see how this unfolds…in the end I wouldn’t be surprised to see that Epstein charmed a mental health professional to give him the space to commit suicide.

Will the reporting on Epstein’s pedophile ring end with his death? Brown doesn’t think so.

“There’s a lot of documents out there…we don’t know completely what US Attorney Geoffrey Berman has but there’s definitely a paper trial. He will prosecute other people who were involved.”

Next, Ruhle asked Brown about the whereabouts of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ‘madame’ who allegedly groomed many of his victims? Why is it that people still don’t know where she is?

“I can’t really answer that question,” Brown said. “She does have dual citizenship with the UK, and she has been associated in recent years with many Oceanographers, so there’s been speculation that she could be on a submarine somewhere.”

During the discussion about how Epstein managed to get himself alone in his cell, one of the other panel participants said that “for an inmate to kill somebody like Jeffrey Epstein would be a badge of honor. He should have been single-celled the entire time. He should have been on suicide watch the entire time. Those are the two things I see where the agency went wrong, very frankly.”

As for next steps, Brown said she’s going to keep following the paper trail of evidence, particularly the latest document dump that hit just hours before Epstein allegedly took his own life.

“I’m going to keep following the trail of evidence that we’ve dug up with these documents that came out the other day…there are new names of people who were alleged to have been involved and also I think everybody is hoping that new people involved with this will come forward.”

Do you think they will?

“At first I thought they would with him being gone because many told me they didn’t want to speak because they had an NDA then  I though well maybe now how effective will those agreements be but with all of these conspiracy theories out there maybe they’re thinking if this could happen to him maybe something similar could happen to them.”

Watch the full interview below:

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z3nXNs Tyler Durden

Doug Casey On Why Gold Is The Best Money

Via CaseyResearch.com,

It’s an unfortunate historical anomaly that people think about the paper in their wallets as money. The dollar is, technically, a currency. A currency is a government substitute for money. But gold is money.

Now, why do I say that?

Historically, many things have been used as money. Cattle have been used as money in many societies, including Roman society. That’s where we get the word “pecuniary” from: the Latin word for a single head of cattle is pecus. Salt has been used as money, also in ancient Rome, and that’s where the word “salary” comes from; the Latin for salt is sal (or salis). The North American Indians used seashells. Cigarettes were used during WWII. So, money is simply a medium of exchange and a store of value.

By that definition, almost anything could be used as money, but obviously, some things work better than others; it’s hard to exchange things people don’t want, and some things don’t store value well. Over thousands of years, the precious metals have emerged as the best form of money. Gold and silver both, though primarily gold.

There’s nothing magical about gold. It’s just uniquely well-suited among the 92 naturally occurring elements for use as money… in the same way aluminum is good for airplanes or uranium is good for nuclear power.

There are very good reasons for this, and they are not new reasons. Aristotle defined five reasons why gold is money in the 4th century BCE (which may only have been the first time it was put down on paper). Those five reasons are as valid today as they were then.

When I give a speech, I often offer a prize to the audience member who can tell me the five classical reasons gold is the best money. Quickly now – what are they? Can’t recall them? Read on, and this time, burn them into your memory.

Money

If you can’t define a word precisely, clearly and quickly, that’s proof you don’t understand what you’re talking about as well as you might. The proper definition of money is as something that functions as a store of value and a medium of exchange.

Government fiat currencies can, and currently do, function as money. But they are far from ideal. What, then, are the characteristics of a good money? Aristotle listed them in the 4th century BCE. A good money must be all of the following:

  • Durable: A good money shouldn’t fall apart in your pocket nor evaporate when you aren’t looking. It should be indestructible. This is why we don’t use fruit for money. It can rot, be eaten by insects, and so on. It doesn’t last.

  • Divisible: A good money needs to be convertible into larger and smaller pieces without losing its value, to fit a transaction of any size. This is why we don’t use things like porcelain for money – half a Ming vase isn’t worth much.

  • Consistent: A good money is something that always looks the same, so that it’s easy to recognize, each piece identical to the next. This is why we don’t use things like oil paintings for money; each painting, even by the same artist, of the same size and composed of the same materials is unique. It’s also why we don’t use real estate as money. One piece is always different from another piece.

  • Convenient: A good money packs a lot of value into a small package and is highly portable. This is why we don’t use water for money, as essential as it is – just imagine how much you’d have to deliver to pay for a new house, not to mention all the problems you’d have with the escrow. It’s also why we don’t use other metals like lead, or even copper. The coins would have to be too huge to handle easily to be of sufficient value.

  • Intrinsically valuable: A good money is something many people want or can use. This is critical to money functioning as a means of exchange; even if I’m not a jeweler, I know that someone, somewhere wants gold and will take it in exchange for something else of value to me. This is why we don’t – or shouldn’t – use things like scraps of paper for money, no matter how impressive the inscriptions upon them might be.

Actually, there’s a sixth reason Aristotle should have mentioned, but it wasn’t relevant in his age, because nobody would have thought of it… It can’t be created out of thin air.

Not even the kings and emperors who clipped and diluted coins would have dared imagine that they could get away with trying to use something essentially worthless as money.

These are the reasons why gold is the best money. It’s not a gold bug religion, nor a barbaric superstition. It’s simply common sense. Gold is particularly good for use as money, just as aluminum is particularly good for making aircraft, steel is good for the structures of buildings, uranium is good for fueling nuclear power plants, and paper is good for making books. Not money. If you try to make airplanes out of lead, or money out of paper, you’re in for a crash.

That gold is money is simply the result of the market process, seeking optimum means of storing value and making exchanges.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z1QrTR Tyler Durden