iftttwall

Authored by Leesa Donner via LibertyNation.com,

In the wake of the Christchurch mosque massacres, gun confiscation fizzles as Kiwis ignore new law.

New Zealand politicians who rushed to enact nationwide gun confiscation following the Christchurch mosque massacres are befuddled by the lack of enthusiasm from citizens who have yet to comply with the new law. The so-called “gun reform” was expected to rid the vast New Zealand countryside of most semi-automatic firearms, magazines over a specified limit, and shotguns.

Two months ago, Reuters breathlessly reported, “New Zealand police expect tens of thousands of firearms to be surrendered by a guns buy-back scheme.” Law enforcement authorities averred that “it could be more.” Pregnant with the expectation that gun owners would trade their firearms for cash, the political class is nonplussed by the results.

Only 530 guns have thus far been turned in to the authorities.

Out Of My Cold, Dead Hands

Figures released by the New Zealand police had politicians and law enforcement officials scrambling to comprehend what just happened. Michael Clement, the police deputy commissioner, assessed the situation by telling the media that the number of guns expected to be handed over is “a great unknown question,” primarily because the firearms the government is confiscating have never been registered with authorities.

Could it be that the brain trust in Wellington needs to up the ante and offer more money? Is this a statement of personal liberty? Could it be considered “ostriching,” Brit-speak for a friendly ability to ignore unpleasantness? Or in psychological parlance, could it merely constitute passive-aggressive behavior? All of these socioeconomic factors may have played a part in the first wave of the buy-back fizzle.

In reality, New Zealand is quite heavily armed per capita, with an estimated 1.2-1.5 million guns in a country of approximately 4.7 million people. To put it another way, the land of the Kiwi is about as big as Colorado with the population of Louisiana. New York City, for example, is home to about 8.6 million (2017 estimate), almost double the size of the New Zealand population.

Mountainous terrain with very few inhabitants largely adds up to a rural people. And what do these folks out in the middle of nowhere do with themselves all the live-long day? Agriculture, forestry, mining, and fishing represent the lion’s share of industry. And then there are all those sheep. Mathematically, there are about seven times more sheep than people in New Zealand. By and large, those who raise sheep and live off the land in what is often referred to as  “homesteading” find that firearms can be quite useful when you attempt to live off the grid.

The Deplorable Factor

These people are likely the NZ version of “deplorables,” who strike quite a contrast to left-leaning urban dwellers. New Zealand’s political chatelaine, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, had an almost unanimous parliamentary vote to institute the gun buy-back, though as Liberty Nation Legal Affairs Editor Scott Cosenza asserts, “Buy-back is really a misnomer because the government never owned those guns in the first place.”

The liberty-minded among us would like to believe that the people of New Zealand are, in the words of William F. Buckley, “Standing athwart history and yelling stop,” but this runs counter to the anodyne Kiwi character. It’s more likely they are quietly demonstrating their “live and let live” sociocultural predilection.

There is, of course, that sticky and ever-present issue of money. Not only will Aotearoa citizens suffer the indignity of being stripped of their guns, but they will also be taxed for the privilege. Some estimates bantered about by New Zealand lawmakers went as high as $500 million to $1 billion to pay for the confiscation scheme. But the truth is, authorities have no idea what it will ultimately cost. Should citizens keep up their non-compliance, then not very much. This would make for a Kiwi win which would allow them to keep their guns and money. But the penalties are stiff for such roguery: Those who refuse to surrender their prohibited firearms could be sentenced to a five-year stay in the slammer.

Much like the United States, New Zealand’s gun-grabbing toffs entrenched in the government can’t stop themselves from trammeling the privileges of those who own guns. As there is no specific right to bear arms per se in the Land of the Long White Cloud, gun-owning citizens face an arduous battle to withhold their firearms from the grasp of the leftist political class.

Perhaps simply ignoring the new regulations may be effective, and law enforcement will find it impractical to round up the firearms of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Whether it becomes an exercise in futility for the government, a quest for a bigger bang for their buck by the people, or merely a quiet sidestep of hastily approved laws, Second Amendment supporters in America would be wise to take note.

It could just be that these laid-back Kiwis are poised to teach us a lesson in how to resist the oppressive and ham-handed fist of a tyrannical government.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2ZcVK3h Tyler Durden

Not long after the city of Denver decriminalized so-called “magic mushrooms,” the push to explore the medicinal uses of one of the west’s most popular psychedelics has transformed into a full-blown movement. And who better to lead it than a certain Congresswoman from New York City?

According to Fox News, AOC filed legislation on Friday to make it easier for researchers to study the therapeutic and medical benefits of certain psychedelic drugs.

Filed as part of a rider to a large-scale appropriations bill, AOC’s provision seeks to end the ban on federal money being spent on “any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance in Schedule I” of the Controlled Substances Act.

“Academics and scientists report that provisions like this create [stigma] and insurmountable logistical hurdles to researching Schedule I drugs,” her summary states.

Last October, an analysis published by the journal Neuropharmacology recommended that psilocybin – the scientific name for the magic mushrooms – be reclassified for medical use, arguing that the benefits in helping treat PTSD, depression and anxiety and helping people stop smoking.

After Oakland City Council last Tuesday passed a resolution to decriminalize the mushrooms, advocates have been out in full force making the case for full-on legalization.

“Entheogenic plants and fungi are tremendous for helping to enable healing, particularly for folks who have experienced trauma in their lives,” Carlos Plazola, chair of the advocacy group Decriminalize Nature Oakland, said before the council meeting. “These plants are being recommended pretty extensively undercover, underground, by doctors and therapists.”

Another amendment to the appropriations bill, filed by Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., would stop the Department of Education from withholding federal funding to any university or college that permits the use or possession of medical marijuana in states where it has been legalized.

While it’s unclear whether either of these two riders will clear the Democratically-controlled House, the Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern has often criticized Republican efforts to block other marijuana-related measures.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2XCm9Hk Tyler Durden

President Trump did a surprise interview on CNBC this morning covering everything from China trade to the Raytheon-UTX deal.

Most notably were his comments about The Fed, slamming them as “disruptive” and said they haven’t listened to him, “made a mistake.”

And China, where Trump accused them of currency manipulation and said he expected to meet Xi at the G20 but if Xi doesn’t go then he will unleash the new tariffs.

Additionally, Trump claimed that China’s weakening currency has offset some of the effects of tariffs.

The Dollar and Bond yields are sliding on Trump’s comments, but – for now – stocks don’t care…

Additional key headlines (via Bloomberg) include:

• *TRUMP SAYS HE’S CONCERNED ABOUT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES, RAYTHEON

• *TRUMP: UNITED TECHNOLOGIES, RAYTHEON DEAL MAY CUT COMPETITION

• *TRUMP SAYS HUAWEI COULD BE PART OF TRADE TALKS WITH CHINA

• *TRUMP SAYS U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SHOULD REPRESENT U.S.

 

 

 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2KERW6F Tyler Durden

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

There is little denying the rise of “socialistic” ideas in the U.S. today. You can try and cover the stench by calling it “social democracy” but in the end, it’s still socialism.

Since 1775, millions of Americans have given their lives in defense of the American “idea.” The tyranny and oppression which arise from communism, socialism, and dictatorships have been a threat worthy of such sacrifice. I am sure those patriots who died to ensure the “American way of life” would be disheartened by the willingness of the up and coming generations adopt such ideals.

But such shouldn’t be a surprise. It is the cycle of all economic civilizations over time as we “forget our history” and become doomed to repeat. it.

Scottish economist Alexander Tytler, who, in 1787, was reported to have commented on the then-new American Republic as follows:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations always progressed through this sequence:

• From Bondage to Moral Certitude;
• from Moral Certitude to Great Courage;
• from Great Courage to Liberty;
• from Liberty to Abundance;
• from Abundance to Selfishness;
• from Selfishness to Complacency;
• from Complacency to Apathy;
• from Apathy to Dependency;
• from Dependency to Bondage.”

Since Tytler’s time, we’ve been able to witness many formerly free countries slide inexorably into their final stages of decline. For example, the countries in the EU are further gone than the countries in North America, and Venezuela is, well, just gone.

Currently, it is fairly evident that the U.S. has moved from complacency to apathy, given the lack of will by any political party to tackle the debts, deficits, and underfunded pension system. Then there are the calls for more government support in everything from absolving student loan debt to government guaranteed employment. As we discussed recently in “MMT – Sounds Great In Theory:”

“While MMT sounds great at the conversational level, so does ‘communism’ and ‘socialism.’ In practice, the outcomes have been vastly different from the theory. The real crisis lies between the choices of ‘austerity’ and continued government ‘largesse.’ One choice leads to long-term economic prosperity for all, the other doesn’t.”

But, here we are, almost 243 years after the United States was founded, and only 36 percent of Americans are satisfied with the current state of the country, according to a recent Gallup poll. Of the 61 percent that are unsatisfied, many believe the social, economic, and cultural issues plaguing the country will lead to its downfall.

The reasoning can be clearly seen in study after study of the finances of American households. 

“Some 23 percent of Americans have to use their credit cards to cover basic necessities, including rent, utilities and groceries, according to a new survey. An additional 12 percent of Americans say that medical bills account for the largest share of their debt, according to the survey of 2,200 U.S. adults by CNBC Make It and Morning Consult.

In addition, Americans have an average of $6,506 in credit card debt, according to a separate report out this week by the Experian credit agency. Just 49 percent of Americans say their job income alone is enough to pay the bills.”

We have discussed this problem previously:

“Assuming a ‘family of four’ needs an income of $58,000 a year to just ‘make it,’ such becomes problematic for the bottom 80% of the population whose wage growth falls far short of what is required to support the standard of living, much less to obtain ‘happiness.’ 

The ‘gap’ between the ‘standard of living’ and real disposable incomes is more clearly shown below. Beginning in 1990, incomes alone were no longer able to meet the standard of living, so consumers turned to debt to fill the ‘gap.’ However, following the ‘financial crisis,’ even the combined levels of income and debt no longer fill the gap. Currently, there is almost a $3200 annual deficit that cannot be filled.”

This is why we continue to see consumer credit hitting all-time records despite an economic boom, rising wage growth, historically low unemployment rates.

The Rise Of Socialism (Dependency To Bondage)

How did a country which was once the shining beacon of “capitalism” become a country on the brink of “socialism?”

Changes like these don’t happen in a vacuum. It is the result of years of a burgeoning divide between the wealthy and everyone else. It is also a function of a 40-year process of capitalism morphing an entire population into “debt slaves” to sustain economic prosperity. 

It is a myth that the economy has grown by roughly 5% since 1980. In reality, economic growth rates have been on a steady decline over the past 40 years, which has been supported by a massive push into deficit spending by consumers.

Look closely at the chart above. From 1950-1980 the economy grew at an annualized rate of 7.70%. This was accomplished with a total credit market debt to GDP ratio of less 150%. The CRITICAL factor to note is that economic growth was trending higher during this span rising from roughly 5% to a peak of nearly 15%. There were a couple of reasons for this. First, lower levels of debt allowed for personal savings to remain robust which fueled productive investment in the economy. Secondly, the economy was focused primarily in production and manufacturing which has a high multiplier effect on the economy.  This feat of growth also occurred in the face of steadily rising interest rates which peaked with economic expansion in 1980.

As we have discussed previously in “The Breaking Point,” beginning in 1980 the shift of the economic makeup from a manufacturing and production based economy to a service and finance economy, where there is a low economic multiplier effect, is partially responsible for this transformation. The decline in economic output was further exacerbated by increased productivity through technological advances, which while advancing our society, plagued the economy with steadily decreasing wages.  Unlike the steadily growing economic environment prior to 1980; the post-1980 economy has experienced by a steady decline. Therefore, a statement that the economy has been growing at 5% since 1980 is grossly misleading. The trend of economic growth, wages, and productivity (5-year averages) show the real problem.

This decline in economic growth has kept the average American struggling to maintain their standard of living. It is from that perspective the rise of socialistic ideas should be of no surprise. As wages declined, families were forced to turn to credit to fill the gap in maintaining their current standard of living. This demand for credit became the new breeding ground for the financed based economy. Easier credit terms, lower interest rates, loose lending standards and less regulation fueled the continued consumption boom. 

While America on the surface was the envy of the world for its apparent success and prosperity; the underlying cancer of debt expansion and lower personal savings was eating away at its core.

Here is another way to look at it. 

What would the economic growth rate be WITHOUT the debt. Instead of $18 Trillion (inflation-adjusted) it would be a negative $50 Trillion.

This chart shows why “socialism” is now “a thing.”

The massive indulgence in debt, what the Austrians refer to as a “credit induced boom”, has now reached its inevitable conclusion. The unsustainable credit-sourced boom, which leads to artificially stimulated borrowing, seeks out diminishing investment opportunities. Ultimately these diminished investment opportunities lead to widespread malinvestments. Not surprisingly, we clearly saw it play out “real-time” in everything from subprime mortgages to derivative instruments which was only for the purpose of milking the system of every potential penny regardless of the apparent underlying risk.

When credit creation can no longer be sustained the markets must began to clear the excesses before the cycle can begin again.  It is only then, and must be allowed to happen, can resources be reallocated back towards more efficient uses.  This is why all the efforts of Keynesian policies to stimulate growth in the economy have ultimately failed. Those fiscal and monetary policies, from TARP and QE to tax cuts, only delay the clearing process. Ultimately, that delay only potentially worsens the inevitable clearing process.

The clearing process is going to be very substantial. The economy is currently requiring roughly $3 of total credit market debt to create $1 of economic growth. A reversion to a structurally manageable level of debt would involve a nearly $30 trillion reduction of total credit market debt. The economic drag from such a reduction will be dramatic while the clearing process occurs.

This is one of the primary reasons why economic growth will continue to run at lower levels going into the future. We will witness an economy plagued by more frequent recessionary spats, lower equity market returns, and a stagflationary environment as wages remain suppressed while costs of living rise. However, only by clearing the excess can the personal savings return to levels which can promote productive investment, production, and ultimately consumption.

Does this mean that all is doomed? Of course, not. However, we will likely remain constrained in the current cycle of “spurt and sputter” growth cycle we have witnessed since 2009. Such will be marked by continued volatile equity market returns, and a stagflationary environment, as wages remain suppressed while costs of living rise. 

The end game of three decades of excess is upon us, and we can’t deny the weight of the debt imbalances that are currently in play. The medicine that the current administration is prescribing is a treatment for the common cold; in this case a normal business cycle recession. The problem is that the patient is suffering from a “debt cancer,” and until the proper treatment is prescribed and implemented; the patient will most likely continue to suffer.

If I am wrong, then a rising percentage of Americans wouldn’t be supporting the idea of “socialism?”

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Zl9Gs7 Tyler Durden

NYC mayor Bill de Blasio’s was one of two candidates who received a total of zero votes in a major new Iowa Presidential poll, according to NBC.

600 registered voters who are likely to participate in the 2020 Democratic caucuses responded to a Des Moines Register/Mediacom/CNN Iowa Poll about who their first and second choices for President were. 

0% of those polled chose Bill de Blasio for either choice.

24% of voters picked Joe Biden as their first choice, 16% picked Bernie Sanders, 15% chose Elizabeth Warren, 14% chose Pete Buttigieg and 7% chose Kamala Harris. 

In fact, “all of the remaining candidates were listed as a first choice by at least one respondent” except de Blasio. 

de Blasio’s message for his Presidential ambitions has been based around confronting President Trump and fighting for working people. Given the job de Blasio has done in New York City, with hate crimes in the city spiking 83%, and the surprising expectation across the aisle that President Trump will win again in 2020, it’s easy for us to understand why nobody seems to care that de Blasio is even in the race. 

Last month, we reported that the “campaign that nobody asked for” was finally about to begin when de Blasio was preparing his announcement to run.

After months of traveling around early caucus and primary states, eliciting a barrage of negative press characterizing his yen for higher office as a product of the same delusions of grandeur that have become a hallmark of his tenure in city hall, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his campaign for president in mid-May. It made him the 22nd Democratic contender for the 2020 nomination.

de Blasio, whose two terms as mayor have been marred by corruption scandals, soaring economic inequality, a worsening homelessness crisis and a rapidly deteriorating subway, is perhaps the least popular of all the candidates. And as we reported earlier this year, almost nobody – not his wife, not his kids, not his closest aides and employees, or any of his fellow Democrats – thinks a de Blasio 2020 campaign is a good idea.

Even the notoriously liberal, pro-de Blasio Daily News couldn’t help but crack a few jokes about his notorious tendency to be late in a story pre-announcing his announcement from early May.

He’s late again.

Mayor de Blasio will jump into the 2020 presidential race next week, according to four people with knowledge of his plans, entering a crowded field of 21 other Democratic hopefuls and two Republicans – dead last.

The 2020 kickoff could come as early as de Blasio’s birthday on Wednesday, when he’ll turn 58, two sources said.

And not a second too soon. The last-minute announcement by the mayor – whose reputation for being late was cemented by his tardiness to a 2014 event honoring victims of American Airlines Flight 587 – has many politicos scratching their heads.

In a sign of just how low morale is in the de Blasio camp, one of the ‘sources’ who confirmed de Blasio’s plans to the Daily News – likely a campaign insider given their proximity to the mayor – joked that de Blasio would only have a chance if “every Democratic candidate is caught sending racy selfies to minors” – a reference to the downfall of Anthony Weiner, the scandal that effectively transformed de Blasio from a dark horse into the frontrunner for the mayorship in 2014.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Wumv1o Tyler Durden

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

The Brexit party was supposed to win the Peterborough by-election. Instead, Labour won. But that’s the wrong takeaway.

There was a special election to replace an MP in the Peterborough district.

Nigel Farage’s Brexit party was supposed to win the seat.

It didn’t, and Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader, was mistakenly crowing.

Understanding the Message

“Peterborough has shown clear support for Labour’s programme to end austerity and invest in services and communities, rejecting a decade of Tory cuts and their disastrous handling of Brexit. In this key seat, the Conservatives have been pushed to the margins.”

What a hoot.

Labour’s percentage fell 16 percentage points from the last election.

Brexit has split both Labour and the Tories.

Tweet of the Day

A remarkable result for our 8 week old party. If we can come so close in our 201st target seat, no seat is safe. We’re very proud of @MikeGreeneTBP & our supporters who worked so hard. Thanks to the people of Peterborough who voted for us – we promise you that we’re here to stay! pic.twitter.com/ARmLuADZ1P

— The Brexit Party (@brexitparty_uk) June 7, 2019

“A remarkable result for our 8 week old party. If we can come so close in our 201st target seat, no seat is safe.”

That’s the correct message.

Message from Peterborough

Eurointelligence get it correct.

Labour won the Peterborough by-election by the thinest of margins – a few hundred votes – followed closely by the Brexit Party. The Tories were in a distant third place. The result will serve as a useful reminder for the Tories of the Brexit party’s destructive potential. Labour won the seat despite a loss of 16pp compared to the previous election. Farage managed to split the conservative wing into two, thus handing Labour what would otherwise have been an easy win for the Tories given the circumstances in which the by-election took place. Forget all the complacent talk about Farage never having won a seat for himself at a general election. This totally misses the point of what is happening in British politics right now. Even if the Brexit Party were only able to secure a small number of seats, it would still have the potential to wipe out the Tories. First-past-the-post systems leverage small political swings into huge re-distributions of seats.

The by-election will serve as yet another reminder to the Tories that they are facing a straight trade-off between political extinction and a Halloween Brexit. The UK’s political class spent the long hours ahead of the Peterborough results discussing the mechanics of a no-deal Brexit, concluding that it is not possible or realistic for a PM to prorogue parliament – the theoretical ability to suspend the House of Commons in late October. We think the main effect of this debate has been to isolate Dominic Raab, the most extreme of the pro-Brexit candidates. Moderate Tories now support Boris Johnson – just savour this statement for a moment. The contest is his to lose.

There are two scenarios that could lead to new elections. The first is a no-confidence vote that Labour said it will deliver when the new government is installed. The second would be a decision by Johnson to call elections – subject to the usual parliamentary procedures – to gain a majority for his own Brexit strategy.

For the moment Johnson has positioned himself in the right spot: an absolute commitment to the Oct 31 leaving date, together with a willingness to compromise on an agreement. There exists no viable strategy for the Tories away from this finely calibrated line.

Eurointelligence Nails It

I am increasingly at odds with Eurointelligence commentary. But this is not one of those times.

Explaining Theresa May’s Deal

Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man Blog has a fitting set of political cartoons. Check it out.

Also check out this video. It’s hilarious.

Matter of Survival

As a matter of survival, Tories need to deliver Brexit by November.

A lengthy delay or a customs union without a short, firm, time limit does not deliver Brexit.

Can Johnson deliver?

I ask that question in Stop Boris Madness In Five Pictures.

My conclusion: “Those backing Remain would do best to support BoJo and hope he makes a big mistake.”

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WwUHOQ Tyler Durden