Pinterest Bans Zero Hedge By Adding To “Porn Domain Block List” Used To Target Conservatives

Documents leaked to Project Veritas by an insider at Pinterest reveal that the San Francisco-based social media company has blocked links from Zero Hedge and several conservative or religious-based websites – adding them to a ‘porn domain block list’ originally intended to keep the platform free of sexually explicit material. 

Veritas has published the list and interviewed said insider, who explained how the company with nearly 300 million active monthly users censors pro-life and Christian content.  

The leak reveals an aggressive campaign to censor conservative content under the guise of ‘hate speech’ and ‘fake news.’ 

Links to the leaked documents can be viewed here, here, here, here, here and here. Of note, in February the social media platform made headlines for blocking searches related to anti-vaccination material. At the time, the company was criticized over their seemingly random methods for determining offensive content. 

“There’s a secretive process with no real appeal where people are making extremely difficult subjective calls that have to do with politics, culture and religion,” said ACLU lawyer Jennifer Granick. 

The insider who leaked to Veritas agreed, saying that they were “pretty surprised” after discovering Live Action’s inclusion on the porn list. 

The insider explained that websites on a “domain block list” cannot be linked in posts made by users. While investigating, Project Veritas tried to post the LiveAction.org link on Pinterest and failed to do so, receiving an error message that read, “Sorry! Your request could not be completed.” Project Veritas reviewed the list of websites from the “porn domain block list” and was able to confirm that along with LiveAction.org, websites like zerohedge.com, pjmedia.com, teaparty.org and other various conservative websites were also listed. The majority of the document lists pornographic websites. –Project Veritas

Screenshot of leaked internal document (via Project Veritas)

The company is particularly protective of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), where content “attacking credibility” of the Green New Deal can result in action taken against its source. 

Pinterest is also looking out for Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, and has provided a list of websites to watch which have been critical of the latter. 

Auto-complete block too!?

In addition to the domain bans, a leaked “Sensitive Terms List” includes phrases that can be blocked by the site’s auto-complete feature. 

Project Veritas also received a large text file titled “Sensitive Terms List.” The insider said the file contains search terms that Pinterest considers “sensitive,” and that the terms are modified in search results according to different value assignments. According to the insider and supporting documents, terms are assigned an “abusive,” “sensitive,” and “brand unsafe” value.

Some of the actions that can be taken on search terms include: blocking auto-complete results in the search bar, providing an advisory message when a term is searched for, removing the term from recommended or trending feeds, and blocking email or push notifications. Search results are also modified based on the values that are applied to terms.

Project Veritas reviewed the “Sensitive Terms List” and discovered that Christianity-related terms like “christian easter” and “bible verses” were marked as “brand unsafe.” The insider explained to Project Veritas in an interview that such terms are removed from auto-complete search results. –Project Veritas

Meanwhile, another leaked document reveals internal Slack channel discussions in which Public Policy and Social Impact Manager Ifeoma Ozoma instructs others to watch for “white supremacist” content from conservative commentators Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens and others. As Veritas notes “Three days after Ozoma’s message, the terms “ben shapiro muslim” and “ben shapiro islam” were added to the “Sensitive Terms List.”” 

“I think when public policies don’t match with how social media companies are actually implementing them, people have a right to know, people have a right to that transparency,” said the insider, adding “And the thing is one person can make all the difference… one person can bring transparency to big tech.“

(H/T Ali Alexander)

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2wQg4uU Tyler Durden

20-Year-Old Sells Blood Plasma Twice A Week To Fund Her Shopping Addiction

Carisa Barker, a 20-year-old self-described “shopaholic”, has made more than $3,000 by “donating” blood plasma, which she does twice a week. She uses the money from donating selling her blood to fund her shopping addiction, according to the NY Post. 

She has spent a year visiting a donation clinic twice a week to donate plasma in exchange for cash. She nets about $280 per month from her donations and has brought in $3,360 over the course of one year. She recommends the practice as an “effortless way to make money”, according to the article. 

Barker said: “I would absolutely recommend it to people who are short of cash and want to go shopping. I donate plasma twice a week. I get $20 the first time and $50 the next time. It’s just a little bit of extra money that I can spend that I don’t feel I worked very hard for.”

Instagram: @Carisa_Barker

Barker admits she hits the mall “about three times a week” and that she spends about $600 per month on clothes. 

She continued: “I’m a shopaholic and I would shop every day if I could. I usually go three or four times a week. Clothes and shoes are my favorite things to buy and I also love beauty products. On each shopping trip I only spend about $50 but that adds up to $150 a week. If I see something that I like or there’s a discount or a good deal, I’ll just buy it. I feel powerful knowing that I have the money and I can buy stuff.”

Plasma is a yellowish fluid in blood that remains after white and red blood cells and platelets have been removed. It is made of water, salts, proteins and enzymes and can be used in medicine that help people suffering from burns, shock and trauma.  And plasma donors – unlike blood donors – are offered cash for their donations. 

She began donating at BioLife Plasma Services in Layton, Utah last summer after a friend suggested it. BioLife said: “Donors also must meet screening criteria for blood count (hematocrit) and total protein levels, along with other screening criteria, prior to each donation – additional testing is done every four months. BioLife adheres to those standards as part of our commitment to the highest standards of safety for our donors and our products that go out to patients.”

Barker said: “One of my friends does it and she took me with her one time. I just kept doing it. I do it as often as I can, which is usually twice a week. It takes about an hour and a half each time I go,” she said.

She continued that “as long as I eat a lot of protein before I go and stay hydrated, I feel fine. There are no health risks that I know of and my parents are fine with me doing it. My plasma is used to make medicines for people with rare diseases. It makes me feel good to know that I’m helping people. I plan to keep donating.”

“My friends have told me to stop shopping but I can’t. I live at home and all of my money goes on shopping. I would save a lot of money if I stopped but as long as I have money that I can spend, I’m going to keep doing it. If I was ever at a point where I didn’t have money, I would stop. Shopping is my biggest expenditure but I also spend a lot on travel.”

And of course, she updates her followers on her plasma donation and shopping addition on her very own YouTube channel.

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

Pritzker’s Untruth: Illinois’ Budget Is Billions Out Of Balance

Authored by Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner via WirePoints.com,

Gov. J.B. Pritzker says Illinois’ budget is balanced ”for the first time in decades.” That’s the claim he made upon signing Illinois’ $40 billion budget for 2020. Pritzker’s claim is simply not true. According to the state’s own actuarial calculations, his budget is billions in the red.

A big reason for the unbalanced budget comes from how politicians account for the state’s retirement debts versus how financial professionals do. There’s often a gap of several billion dollars between the two. Hiding that gap has allowed Illinois pols to perpetuate the myth of balanced budgets for decades.

Take Pritzker’s 2020 budget. The state’s pension funding laws, set up nearly 25 years ago by the General Assembly and then-Gov. Jim Edgar, require the state to pay $9 billion* to Illinois’ five state-run pensions in 2020. “We are paying the full payment that is required under the ramp that was put in place in 1995, the statutory required payment,” Pritzker said when he signed the budget.

But what Pritzker ignores is the amount the state’s own actuaries say is required to properly fund Illinois’ pensions in 2020, an amount that exceeds $13 billion. That’s a total shortfall of $4 billion.

And it’s not just pension payments that are being shorted. It’s also payments for state-worker retiree health insurance that are grossly underpaid.

State actuaries calculate the required payments for those benefits at about $4 billion annually, yet the state has only paid around $1 billion yearly in recent years. That’s billions more in shortfalls that Pritzker’s budget ignores.

Defenders of the “balanced-budget” claim will want to paint the above as a matter of semantics. But the billions in shortfalls are not only a matter of accounting. When the state continues to grow its pension promises faster than it can pay for them – and then doesn’t pay enough into its state-worker retirement plans – it doesn’t balance the budget. The state’s debts jump as a result. Illinois’ skyrocketing pension and retiree health insurance debts are the evidence of that.

Illinois not even “treading water”

Despite the fact that Pritzker’s payment to pensions consumes nearly a quarter of the current budget – no other state is in such dire straits – it still won’t stop the state’s pension debts from growing. That’s how sick Illinois’ finances are.

Illinois’ Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability shows that despite a $9.2 billion* contribution into pensions in 2020, the state’s unfunded liabilities will still increase by $2.4 billion to $139 billion. Illinois is not unlike the financial deadbeat that never pays the minimum payment on his credit card. As a result, its debts just grow.

To just “tread water” – to keep Illinois’ debt flat from one year to the next – the state payment in 2020 should be $2.4 billion higher, or over $11 billion in total.

That tread water amount, however, does nothing to reduce Illinois’ pension debts. Even more, it’s based on the state’s actuarial assumptions actually panning out. If they don’t, then the state’s pension debts will be even bigger.

Statutory payment

If Pritzker and team want to make claims of “balanced” budgets, they’ll have to make lots of changes going forward.

For starters, they’ll need to dump the Edgar ramp, which pushes the repayment of pension debts far into the future, requires just 90 percent funding levels by 2045, and assumes overly optimistic investment rates.

In its place, they’ll have to accept the stricter standards adopted by the state actuaries (see Exhibit 2 for an example of TRS’ standard). Their required payments are larger to ensure the pension shortfalls get paid down sooner. They pursue 100 percent funding targets and accelerate the repayment of debts (TRS’ actuaries target 2035, SERS targets 2040 and SURS targets 2045). And how they account for individual pensions is more conservative (entry age normal vs. projected unit cost). All that results in required payments that are $4 billion larger than the state’s statutory requirements.

But politicians should go even further. While the actuaries still depend on ramps, other financial groups demand the use of less rosy investment rate assumptions and flat debt repayment schedules (level dollar) to determine yearly state contributions.

Wirepoints has covered JP Morgan’s estimates of Illinois’ required payments and ran our own as well, shown below. Those more responsible assumptions would require the state to put even more money into the pension plans.

Irresponsible

Politicians on both sides of the aisle can pat themselves on the back all they want for passing a budget. But the truth is they’ve just made Illinois’ debt crisis even worse.

They’re not paying what they should, nor have they passed a single structural reform that would help lower the annual cost of retirements. (In fact, they’ve done the opposite by reboosting pension spiking for teachers.)

Illinois fiscal reality won’t change until the state is more honest about its debts and it reduces those debts through structural reforms.

*The state’s contribution includes $8 billion in money from the state’s general fund budget and an additional $1 billion from other special funds.

Read more about how politicians mislead Illinoisans about the impact of retirements on the budget:

Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 2.

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

Congress Wants to Help Broker a Better Tech Deal for Big Media

Congress wants to help broker better tech deal for Big Media. Today, members of the U.S. House of Representatives will “be hearing multiple pitches for a bill called the Journalism and Preservation Act,” pushed by “lobbyists for the newspaper industry,” CNN Business reports.

Politicians may have a historically rocky relationship with traditional press, but at least they can control it somewhat, especially through soft means like bullying reporters over bad takes or promising access in exchange for “fair” coverage. Online platforms are a whole different beast, and one that leaves neither establishment journalists nor political authorities with room to hide from the masses, nor protection from anyone with a phone reporting on their antics. It’s no wonder that—the president’s bluster about Fake News aside—we’re seeing a growing alliance between Washington and the news industry when it comes to technology policy and punishment.

The media bill (H.R. 2054) being hashed out today may not be so bad in itself. It “would provide newspapers and online publishers with a four-year antitrust exemption, allowing them to band together in negotiations with online platforms,” writes CNN’s Brian Stelter.

But the people pushing it sound scarily like all they really want is crony corporatist solutions to competition from digital technology and the masses. They want to be able to force all sorts of online intermediaries and web platforms to conduct business on terms that are favorable to certain big publications.

David Chavern, CEO of the News Media Alliance, told CNN that if publishers could come together to negotiate, they could pressure platforms with regard to not just economic arrangements between press and tech companies but also sharing their customer data, their algorithms (or as Chavern calls them, “secret rules that change on a moment’s notice”), and control over which publications they promote. Hmm…

Do we really want both tech platforms and all sorts of media outlets to be able to access our data? Why should The New York Times or CNN get a say in what social media companies promote on their own platforms? Or to peek at the private intellectual property and business practices of these companies? And how in the world does that help anyone but, well, Big Media?

No matter how many news outlets band together, they’re not going to find a way to stop a lot of advertisers from choosing social platforms and search engines (one of the big things harming traditional media right now). Nor are they likely to succeed finding some way to force platforms like Google News to pay publishers for links (why oh why would a platform pay you to promote your product?).

When giving details, these groups show a fundamental misunderstanding or dishonesty about how online monetization works.

In any event, House members are expected to discuss the bill at a hearing today titled “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 1: The Free and Diverse Press.” It starts at 2 p.m.

In the meantime, check out Nick Gillespie on the question: “Are Google and YouTube evil?” and read Andrea O’Sullivan on what antitrust actions against them would mean.

FREE MINDS

Good news:

FREE MARKETS

187 companies sign on to letter against abortion laws. Big companies from H&M to Slack to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream are critiquing abortion bans passed in some states recently. From Business Insider:

Banks, tech firms, media companies, and fashion brands jointly signed a full-page ad in The New York Times, published Monday, that said: “Equality in the workplace is one of the most important business issues of our time.” Signatories on the open letter — titled “Don’t Ban Equality” — included Bloomberg, Ben & Jerry’s, Postmates, H&M, Yelp, Atlantic Records & Warner Media Group, Tinder, and Slack.

“Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health, independence and economic stability of our employees and customers,” the companies said in the letter, adding they employ more than 108,000 workers.

“Simply put, it goes against our values and is bad for business,” they said. “It impairs our ability to build diverse and inclusive workforce pipelines, recruit top talent across the states, and protect the well-being of all the people who keep our businesses thriving day in and out.”

QUICK HITS

  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s facial recognition database has already been breached.
  • Are you ready for “fully automated luxury communism“?
  • “What’s happening is that the broader national context is changing, not that the cannabis laws didn’t have this initial protective effect” against opioid overdoses, Johns Hopkins professor Brendan Saloner told the Wall Street Journal.
  • A case involving the Obamacare contraception mandate and Notre Dame University health coverage goes to federal court today.
  • Making grifting simple again? “Trump-era grifting is unique in its shamelessness,” but Mitch “McConnell and his wife harken back to a simpler (and more enduring) time,” quips The Bulwark, reporting on the latest scandal involving Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.
  • Target is expanding paid leave to all employees, regardless of whether they work full- or part-time.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2WxDhBs
via IFTTT

Congress Wants to Help Broker a Better Tech Deal for Big Media

Congress wants to help broker better tech deal for Big Media. Today, members of the U.S. House of Representatives will “be hearing multiple pitches for a bill called the Journalism and Preservation Act,” pushed by “lobbyists for the newspaper industry,” CNN Business reports.

Politicians may have a historically rocky relationship with traditional press, but at least they can control it somewhat, especially through soft means like bullying reporters over bad takes or promising access in exchange for “fair” coverage. Online platforms are a whole different beast, and one that leaves neither establishment journalists nor political authorities with room to hide from the masses, nor protection from anyone with a phone reporting on their antics. It’s no wonder that—the president’s bluster about Fake News aside—we’re seeing a growing alliance between Washington and the news industry when it comes to technology policy and punishment.

The media bill (H.R. 2054) being hashed out today may not be so bad in itself. It “would provide newspapers and online publishers with a four-year antitrust exemption, allowing them to band together in negotiations with online platforms,” writes CNN’s Brian Stelter.

But the people pushing it sound scarily like all they really want is crony corporatist solutions to competition from digital technology and the masses. They want to be able to force all sorts of online intermediaries and web platforms to conduct business on terms that are favorable to certain big publications.

David Chavern, CEO of the News Media Alliance, told CNN that if publishers could come together to negotiate, they could pressure platforms with regard to not just economic arrangements between press and tech companies but also sharing their customer data, their algorithms (or as Chavern calls them, “secret rules that change on a moment’s notice”), and control over which publications they promote. Hmm…

Do we really want both tech platforms and all sorts of media outlets to be able to access our data? Why should The New York Times or CNN get a say in what social media companies promote on their own platforms? Or to peek at the private intellectual property and business practices of these companies? And how in the world does that help anyone but, well, Big Media?

No matter how many news outlets band together, they’re not going to find a way to stop a lot of advertisers from choosing social platforms and search engines (one of the big things harming traditional media right now). Nor are they likely to succeed finding some way to force platforms like Google News to pay publishers for links (why oh why would a platform pay you to promote your product?).

When giving details, these groups show a fundamental misunderstanding or dishonesty about how online monetization works.

In any event, House members are expected to discuss the bill at a hearing today titled “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 1: The Free and Diverse Press.” It starts at 2 p.m.

In the meantime, check out Nick Gillespie on the question: “Are Google and YouTube evil?” and read Andrea O’Sullivan on what antitrust actions against them would mean.

FREE MINDS

Good news:

FREE MARKETS

187 companies sign on to letter against abortion laws. Big companies from H&M to Slack to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream are critiquing abortion bans passed in some states recently. From Business Insider:

Banks, tech firms, media companies, and fashion brands jointly signed a full-page ad in The New York Times, published Monday, that said: “Equality in the workplace is one of the most important business issues of our time.” Signatories on the open letter — titled “Don’t Ban Equality” — included Bloomberg, Ben & Jerry’s, Postmates, H&M, Yelp, Atlantic Records & Warner Media Group, Tinder, and Slack.

“Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health, independence and economic stability of our employees and customers,” the companies said in the letter, adding they employ more than 108,000 workers.

“Simply put, it goes against our values and is bad for business,” they said. “It impairs our ability to build diverse and inclusive workforce pipelines, recruit top talent across the states, and protect the well-being of all the people who keep our businesses thriving day in and out.”

QUICK HITS

  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s facial recognition database has already been breached.
  • Are you ready for “fully automated luxury communism“?
  • “What’s happening is that the broader national context is changing, not that the cannabis laws didn’t have this initial protective effect” against opioid overdoses, Johns Hopkins professor Brendan Saloner told the Wall Street Journal.
  • A case involving the Obamacare contraception mandate and Notre Dame University health coverage goes to federal court today.
  • Making grifting simple again? “Trump-era grifting is unique in its shamelessness,” but Mitch “McConnell and his wife harken back to a simpler (and more enduring) time,” quips The Bulwark, reporting on the latest scandal involving Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.
  • Target is expanding paid leave to all employees, regardless of whether they work full- or part-time.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2WxDhBs
via IFTTT

Trump Teaser: “Biggest Part Of Mexico Deal Has Not Yet Been Revealed”

One day after Mexico’s Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard denied the existence of a secret immigration deal when describing the nature of the ‘understanding’ reached between the US and Mexico, President Trump again touted on Tuesday the existence of such a deal, saying the “biggest part of deal with Mexico has not yet been revealed!” during a series of tweets.

After blasting Maria Bartiromo (with whom Trump has sat for several exclusive interviews) and several other Fox Business hosts for the network’s criticisms of his tariff strategy (Trump called into CNBC Monday morning to attack a Chamber of Commerce official who had the temerity to criticize Trump’s protectionist trade strategy), the president added that the true efficacy of his tariff threats can’t yet be assessed by the public.

That’s because the “biggest part” of his deal with Mexico has yet to be revealed. He also accused China of intentionally weaken the yuan to offset the impact of the US tariffs, which is why there hasn’t been as much of an impact on the consumer.

Trump added that the tariff threats would help incentivize US automakers to move more production back to the US. When will we learn the details of this deal? It’s unclear. Both sides have said the Mexico will have a few weeks to prove that its immigration-mitigation strategies are working – and if they’re not, the issue will be revisited.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2R6haMy Tyler Durden

Stossel: Don’t Be Scared of Designer Babies

Have you heard of “designer babies?”

Parents who use in vitro fertilization can already select an embryo by gender and screen for diseases. Gene-editing technology will eventually allow them to alter their future offspring’s intelligence, height, eye color, and more.

This scares some people. Eighty-three percent of Americans say editing human genes to improve intelligence goes too far.

“Of course they say that,” says Georgetown University Professor Jason Brennan in an interview with John Stossel. “When you have any kind of intervention into the body that’s new, people think it’s icky. And they take that feeling of ‘ickiness’ and they moralize, and think it’s a moral objection.”

Jenna Bush Hager, who’s the daughter of former President George W. Bush, recently said that “there should be things that we leave up to God.”

“I’m not really sure I’m going to take her word for it,” says Brennan. “If God appears before me and says ‘don’t do this,’ I’ll stop.”

“We already give our kids music lessons, braces, tutoring, karate lessons,” Stossel says. “Any advantage we can—why not also give them the best genes?”

In the future, he notes, humans could be much smarter—perhaps possessing the wisdom enough to avoid wars and travel to other planets.

Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Tufts, argues that it’ll “be a new way to create disparities in wealth.”

“Every bit of technology that we enjoy today follows the same pattern,” says Brennan. “You look in your automobile, and you have a CD player or an MP3 player, and a GPS. All of these things, when they first became available, were incredibly expensive,” he says.

When asked if he was simply opposed to technological progress, Krimsky responded, “I love change…But I think there are some boundaries.”

Will there be social pressure for everyone to have “designer babies”?

“It’s not so clear why that’s a problem,” Brennan says. “If everyone is making their kids healthier and stronger and smarter, and less prone to disease, and you feel social pressure to go along with that, good. Shouldn’t you do that as a parent for your child?”

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2KJ0GJk
via IFTTT

Stossel: Don’t Be Scared of Designer Babies

Have you heard of “designer babies?”

Parents who use in vitro fertilization can already select an embryo by gender and screen for diseases. Gene-editing technology will eventually allow them to alter their future offspring’s intelligence, height, eye color, and more.

This scares some people. Eighty-three percent of Americans say editing human genes to improve intelligence goes too far.

“Of course they say that,” says Georgetown University Professor Jason Brennan in an interview with John Stossel. “When you have any kind of intervention into the body that’s new, people think it’s icky. And they take that feeling of ‘ickiness’ and they moralize, and think it’s a moral objection.”

Jenna Bush Hager, who’s the daughter of former President George W. Bush, recently said that “there should be things that we leave up to God.”

“I’m not really sure I’m going to take her word for it,” says Brennan. “If God appears before me and says ‘don’t do this,’ I’ll stop.”

“We already give our kids music lessons, braces, tutoring, karate lessons,” Stossel says. “Any advantage we can—why not also give them the best genes?”

In the future, he notes, humans could be much smarter—perhaps possessing the wisdom enough to avoid wars and travel to other planets.

Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Tufts, argues that it’ll “be a new way to create disparities in wealth.”

“Every bit of technology that we enjoy today follows the same pattern,” says Brennan. “You look in your automobile, and you have a CD player or an MP3 player, and a GPS. All of these things, when they first became available, were incredibly expensive,” he says.

When asked if he was simply opposed to technological progress, Krimsky responded, “I love change…But I think there are some boundaries.”

Will there be social pressure for everyone to have “designer babies”?

“It’s not so clear why that’s a problem,” Brennan says. “If everyone is making their kids healthier and stronger and smarter, and less prone to disease, and you feel social pressure to go along with that, good. Shouldn’t you do that as a parent for your child?”

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2KJ0GJk
via IFTTT

Who would possibly do something so crazy? Pretty much everyone in Japan.

It was precisely 20 seconds past 9:44am on November 14, 2017 that Japan Railways train number 5255 departed from Minami Nagareyama Station on the outskirts of Tokyo.

Hardly anything seems noteworthy about a train leaving a station. It happens countless times each day all over the world.

Except THIS particular train was supposed to depart FORTY seconds past 9:44am. So it left the station 20 seconds early.

In virtually every other country in the world, a train departing 20 seconds early would not even be noticed. Nor would anyone care.

But this is Japan. And in Japan, the 5255 train departs at 9:44:20. Not a second earlier. Or later.

The early departure was such a big deal that the train company conducted an investigation into how such a transgression could have possibly occurred.

And then the CEO issued a formal apology explaining what steps the company was taking to ensure it wouldn’t happen again.

20 seconds…

Clearly this is one of the most unusual places in the world.

I actually refer to it as “Planet Japan”, because out of the 120+ countries that I’ve visited, Japan is by far the most… different, with a culture so unique it’s practically Martian.

Japan is a land of endless paradoxes.

Think back to 2011 when the country was devastated by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake.

Rather than panicking and looting, Japanese people sat quietly outside of their demolished homes waiting patiently for the authorities to tell them what to do, even while the nearby nuclear reactors were melting down.

Yet this is also the country where women are routinely groped on crowded subways, and used panties are sold in vending machines for sexual pleasure.

Streets in Tokyo are spotless. Yet you can walk for miles without seeing a single garbage bin.

This is a culture so serious that they perfected ritualistic suicide. Yet they go bonkers for cartoons and animated mascots.

The paradoxes extend to the economy as well.

In 1945 after being obliterated by the first atomic weapons in history, the Japanese people set themselves to the task of development. And they quickly built their economy into one of the most prosperous in the world.

Today Japan is wealthy and extraordinarily well developed. But the economy has been stagnant for decades.

Japan’s primary stock index, the Nikkei 225, is currently around 21,000… a level it first surpassed in March of 1987 when Lethal Weapon was the #1 movie in the world.

In other words, the stock market has returned zero gains to investors after three decades.

Japan is a land of extraordinary innovation. Just about everything here, from robotics to machinery, down to some of the most basic, everyday items (like toilets!) are cutting edge and different.

Yet there’s minimal entrepreneurship in Japan. And there’s a rampant problem with suicide among young workers (which reached a 30-year high in 2018).

The Japanese government’s debt burden is the highest in the world. At roughly 1.1 QUADRILLION yen (that’s fifteen zeroes, or about USD $10 trillion), Japan’s debt is more than twice the size of its entire economy.

And it’s only getting worse.

Then there’s the Social Security system… which is already draining the treasury. Japan’s population is THE oldest in the world, with the highest percentage of people over the age of 65, yet the longest life expectancy.

Recently a 90-year old pensioner voiced concern about the future solvency of Social Security, to which the Japanese finance minister commented, “How much longer do you plan to live?”

(Just a reminder- Soylent Green is people…)

Last year, it took 95% of the government’s tax revenue to service the debt, and pay for their national Social Security system. 95%!

Only 5% was left over for literally everything else in government. And that’s why the Japanese government has to keep borrowing.

The central bank has obliged, pushing interest rates down to NEGATIVE levels. The current yield on the Japanese 10-year government bond is a big fat MINUS 0.12%.

So you have to actually pay this bankrupt government money in order to lend to them.

Crazy, right? Who would do something so insane?

Pretty much every institution in Japan.

Major corporations. The central bank. Even individual investors– mom and pop pensioners, invest their cash in these negative yielding bonds that have no hope of ever being credibly repaid.

And of course, Japanese commercial banks buy these government bonds as well, meaning that pretty much everyone on Planet Japan with money in the bank is exposed to this garbage.

Don’t get me wrong– Planet Japan is truly wonderful: modern, captivating, and richly rewarding. It’s one of my favorite places to visit.

But it’s a great example of why a Plan B is so important.

It’s all fine and good to hope for the best… that the central bank will be able to print money forever, that the government will be able to borrow money forever, that every bank and major corporation will keep lending forever… and that there will never be any problems until the end of time.

But in light of such compelling evidence, that’s certainly wishful and dangerous thinking.

Plan B logic is pretty simple: if your government is completely bankrupt, you probably don’t want to hold 100% of your assets there.

If your central bank keeps printing money into oblivion, you probably don’t want to keep 100% of your savings in that currency.

If your banks are loading up on negative-yielding government debt (or any other garbage investments), you probably don’t want to keep 100% of your money there.

Obviously I’m not just talking about Japan here. Much of Europe and North America is in the same boat. Or at least the same choppy waters. So the same principles apply.

These steps aren’t pessimistic or gloomy. Having a Plan B is just common sense and absolutely worth your consideration.

Source

from Sovereign Man http://bit.ly/31rRIpJ
via IFTTT

Amazon Launches Credit Card For Deadbeats

Submitted by Nick Colas of DataTrek Research

Amazon launched a new credit card offering today for individuals with bad/no credit. If disruptive innovation always starts with addressing the low end of a market (and it does…) then this move merits attention. If anyone has the technological horsepower to crack the low end of the financial services marketplace, it’s Amazon.

Most of what passes for “disruptive innovation” doesn’t actually fit that description too well. We haven’t talked about this idea for a while, so as a reminder:

  • Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen’s original disruption paradigm describes a business that starts life addressing the low end of a market.

  • To be profitable competing in this segment, the company has a unique edge. Think Japanese “lean manufacturing” in the auto industry or Amazon’s original business of selling books on the Internet. Both were novel for their time and gave a definable competitive/financial advantage.

  • Since these new entrants are only attacking the low end of a market, established competitors cede ground since they don’t make much money here anyway.

  • Over time, the new company moves upscale using the same competitive advantage. Again, established companies retreat since they still have the high end to keep them profitable.

  • Eventually, the upstarts become the status quo as the old guard dies and the whole cycle begins anew.

We bring all this up because Amazon’s news today that it is launching a secured credit card for individuals with bad/no credit history fits this pattern better than a lot of things that pass for “disruption” these days. A few details:

  • The underbanked/unbanked/low credit score cohort clearly fits the definition of the “low end” of the market for financial services. While community banking laws mean the bad-old-days of redlining are largely past, there is still a sizable community of Americans with little access to the financial products most of us take for granted.

  • Amazon Credit Builder is the name of the company’s new secured credit card offering. A customer deposits $100 – $1,000 with Amazon’s affiliated bank (mailing a check/money order is an option) and receives a credit card with a line of credit of equal amount.

  • Repayment is fixed at 6, 12, or 24 months, customers can track their credit score online and also see how timely repayment is improving their FICO score on a monthly basis.

  • Clients of Amazon Credit Builder can upgrade to the company’s standard credit card offerings in as little as 7 months provided they make timely payments. At that point their security deposit is refunded in full.

  • The only downside (but it’s a lulu)…. An annual percentage rate of 28.24%.

Our thought: Amazon is famous for only addressing large markets but often starting small and this product seems to fit both characteristics. If anyone has the technology (and lack of branch infrastructure) to make a profitable go of it at the low end of consumer banking, it is Amazon.

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