Tag: finance

A day after unveiling his first major charitable initiative (an announcement that arrived, coincidentally, we’re sure, after a bruising week of headlines detailing the latest crop of worker-abuse allegations directed at Amazon), Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (also the world’s wealthiest man) disappointed hundreds of powerful people who had convened to hear him speak – as rumors swirled that he might reveal the location of Amazon’s much-hyped HQ2 – last night at the Economic Club of Washington DC. But instead of an outright reveal, Bezos assured his audience that Amazon plans to announce the location by the end of the year, though he wouldn’t elaborate beyond that.

According to CNBC, Bezos, who was interviewed by private equity titan David Rubenstein, assured his audience that Amazon’s team is “working hard” on evaluating the finalists (the company announced 20 finalists earlier this year).

“The answer is very simple…We will answer the decision before the end of the year,” Bezos said. “We will get there.” Bezos swiftly changed the subject to his recently launched “Day One” charitable fund, which he recently seeded with $2 billion of his personal fortune.

As is his nature, Bezos shared his intentions to expand the “Day One” fund as his team learns more about the “business” of philanthropy.

“I believe in the power of wandering,” Bezos said. “All of my best decisions in business and life have been made with heart, intuition, guts — not analysis.”

He later said he would like to invest “a lot of money” in an enterprise that most rational investors would view as a “really bad investment”, a statement that turned into a plug for his Blue Origin space exploration company.

“If I can’t make Blue Origin a for-profit thing, maybe I’ll convert it to non-profit some distant point in the future, but I wouldn’t want that,” Bezos said. “I want it to be a thriving ecosystem more like UPS and FedEx.”

As the conversation turned to the early days of Amazon, Bezos said he was attracted to the Emerald City because of the proximity to Microsoft, which he admired for its technically advanced workforce.

“I did locate Amazon in Seattle because of Microsoft,” he said. “It’s not a complete coincidence – there is some correlation there.”

After repeatedly refusing to respond to President Trump’s repeated Amazon bashing (a phenomenon that has on occasion impacted Amazon shares), Bezos seized the opportunity to lash out at the president – though he largely avoided using the president’s name. In addition to Amazon, Trump has famously bashed the Washington Post as Amazon’s “chief lobbyist” amid broader criticisms of the industry.

But rather than being angry at WaPo and the New York Times for churning out an unceasing stream of negative press coverage, Bezos suggested that politicians (read: Trump) should instead respect the fact that he’s being held accountable by the immense press scrutiny (perhaps Bezos should consider taking his own advice, seeing that Amazon continues to withhold access from the NYT after the paper published a controversial story back in 2015 alleging a toxic corporate culture at Amazon HQ). When directly asked about Trump’s tweets, Bezos declined to defend himself, but did defend the Washington Post, saying it is dangerous for politicians to “demonize” the media.

Here’s more from Fox Business:

When asked about it,  Bezos called it a “mistake” for any elected official to “attack media and journalists.”

What Trump “should say is, ‘This is right, this is good. I am glad I am being scrutinized,’ and that would be so secure and confident,” Bezos said in comments reported by Reuters. “But it is really dangerous to demonize the media. It is dangerous to call the media lowlifes, it is dangerous to say that they are the enemy of the people.”

Trump has referred to the Washington Post as Amazon’s “chief lobbyist.”

The newspaper says Bezos has no involvement in its news coverage.

“The media,” Bezos added, “is going to be fine. We’re going to push through this.”

And WSJ:

“All big institutions of any kind will be and should be scrutinized,” Mr. Bezos said. “It’s not personal. It’s kind of what we want to have as a society happen.”

[…]

“There are certain things that only big companies can do,” Mr. Bezos said. “Nobody in their garage is going to build an all-fiber fuel-efficient Boeing 787.”

Circling back to the discussion of Amazon’s HQ2, it’s worth noting that speculators have heavily favored the Washington DC-area (if not the capital itself) as the most likely setting for HQ2. A series of seemingly unintentional leaks have only furthered the speculation. As of Friday, betting site OddsShark had Northern Virginia as the most likely location for HQ2, followed by Washington DC. Whichever city wins the “honor” of hosting Amazon (an honor that will be accompanied, no doubt, by tens – if not hundreds – of millions of dollars in tax incentives) will reportedly receive a $5 billion investment from Amazon, as well as 50,000 jobs.

While his audience was no doubt delighted by Bezos’ chat, others were less than pleased.

Photos showing dozens of the country’s most powerful people – the audience included 20 ambassadors and at least one governor – lining up to kiss Bezos’s ring after the talk sparked something of a backlash on twitter.

love when our elected officials treat corporate titans like teens at a Taylor Swift meet and greet. I feel great about our political system, personally https://t.co/1VJ1JfqUyc

— Emma Roller (@emmaroller) September 14, 2018

Watch the full interview below:

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xesPAi Tyler Durden

Despite the recent pullback in the high end of the market, the prospect of buying property in New York City will likely remain hopelessly out of reach for most millennials. However, if one millennial or a group of millennials played their cards right, they could wind up owning a whole town for a price roughly equivalent to one NYC condo. 

The owners of the town of Toomsboro Georgia recently put their property up for sale. The asking price: A cool $1.7 million. Perks include a cotton warehouse and railroad depot, as NBC New York reports.

Toomsboro encompasses over 40 acres of land and 36 parcels of property, according to its page on Craigslist. In addition to houses, the town comes complete with a restaurant, syrup mill, cotton warehouse, bank, historic inn, railroad depot, school house, barbershop and more.

Interested parties can read more about the listing online, where a website dedicated to the town includes a brief biography and some photos, some of which we’ve included below:

According to the site, the town’s owners want to see Toomsboro end up in the hands of someone who appreciates its history, and who will preserve the town and it’s legacy instead of pushing for new development. But that doesn’t mean an ambitious buyer couldn’t settle on some innovative uses for the land.

Potential owners could help transform Toomsboro into the next great music festival venue or leverage its diverse array of buildings as the perfect set for Hollywood’s next Oscar-worthy period piece. The town’s pond comes complete with RV hookups that could make it an idyllic camping spot. With a little bit of love and vision, the possibilities for the property are almost endless.

Toomsboro is located at the crossroads of Highway 57 and Highway 112, just 20 miles east of Macon and 120 miles southeasts of Atlanta.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xg77f6 Tyler Durden

A controversial report detailing that Saudi Arabia has purchased Israeli’s Iron Dome defense system went viral this week after a prominent Arabic news site made the claim based on diplomatic sources.

Al-Khaleej Online, which is based in the UK and Persian Gulf, published the bombshell report on Wednesday, which alleged that the first Iron Dome missile battery is slated to be transferred to Saudi Arabia before the end of the year in December. 

As Israel and Saudi Arabia are still longtime “official enemies” in the eyes of much of the Middle East public despite keeping increasingly close intelligence relations out of a shared desire to thwart Iran in the region, the story immediately stirred deep controversy, prompting Israeli officials to issue a prompt denial. 

“We deny the existence of a deal to sell Iron Dome to Saudi Arabia,” Israel’s Defense Ministry said in an emailed statement to the Times of Israel. Israeli officials were responding to the story sweeping national media on the heels of the claims taking Arabic social media by storm. 

And further controversial is that the missile transfer, said to be in “excess of tens of millions of dollars,” reportedly included the mediation of the United States.

Saudi Arabia, for its part, has been mum on the controversy, which is not actually the first time the allegation has been made. Riyadh and Tel Aviv have reportedly developed closer ties in the midst of both Syrian and Yemeni wars, where they fear growing Iranian influence. 

Amidst these closer intelligence and defense relations as a result of the Shia Houthi-led rebellion in Yemen, the two were said to be in prior talks concerning the advanced Iron Dome system.

According to Newsweek:

In May 2015, just two months after Saudi Arabia and allies launched their campaign against the Zaidi Shiite Muslim Houthis in Yemen, U.K.-based Arabic-language Rai al-Youm reported on an alleged Israeli offer to sell the Iron Dome to Saudi Arabia on the sidelines of talks hosted by the U.S. in the Jordanian capital of Amman, citing a Western diplomatic source. The offer was reportedly rejected at the time.

And in May of this year, just as President Trump pulled the US out of the 2015 Iran nuclar deal, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman appealed directly to what he called “moderate” Sunni powers, including Saudi Arabia, to urge they should “come out of the closet” and openly cooperate with Israel. This was despite the fact that the two countries still don’t have official diplomatic ties, something which would enrage much of the kingdom’s Sunni Wahhabi religious scholars and citizens. 

Israel relies on the Iron Dome system to take out short-range rockets and artillery shells lobbed from Gaza, and in past years to protect against the threat of sophisticated Hezbollah rockets based on southern Lebanon. 

Saudi Arabia has of late been the target of medium-range ballistic missiles from from Yemen’s Houthi controlled areas, which its current U.S.-built Patriot missile systems have reportedly had trouble intercepting.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Mye5kE Tyler Durden

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

• “We need a new European Commission that is committed to the defense of Europe’s borders.” — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

• “A few months ago … there was an election in Hungary. The Hungarian people decided what should happen, and during the election campaign we discussed all of the issues — including CEU, the NGOs, and all of the important political issues. And the people decided on these issues. And now the European Parliament is taking upon itself the task of overruling the decision made by the people of Hungary and forcing the Hungarian government to implement what they are attempting to impose on us in place of the people’s decision.” — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

• “Hungary and the Hungarian people have been convicted because we have proven that migration is not needed and that it can be stopped.” — Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó.

• “Hungary’s decisions are made by the voters in parliamentary elections. What you are claiming is no less than saying that the Hungarian people are not sufficiently capable of being trusted to judge what is in their own interests. You think that you know the needs of the Hungarian people better than the Hungarian people themselves…. This report applies double standards, it is an abuse of power, it oversteps the limits on spheres of competence, and the method of its adoption is a treaty violation.” — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

The European Parliament has voted to pursue unprecedented disciplinary action against Hungary over alleged breaches of the European Union’s “fundamental values.” The EU has accused the Hungarian government of attacks against the media, minorities and the rule of law.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (standing), recently said: “We need a new European Commission that is committed to the defense of Europe’s borders.” (Photo by Laszlo Balogh/Getty Images)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has denied the charges, and said they are a retaliation for his government’s refusal to take in migrants from the Muslim world.

The censure represents another salvo in a showdown between pro- and anti-EU forces over populism and nationalism ahead of European Parliament elections in May 2019.

During a session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on September 12, MEPs voted 448-to-197 — by a margin of more than two-thirds — to trigger Article 7 against Hungary. It was the first time that such parliamentary action has been taken against an EU member state; the move can ultimately lead to Hungary losing its voting rights in EU institutions.

Article 7, sometimes dubbed the “Nuclear Option,” threatens sanctions against EU member states deemed to be in violation of the EU’s fundamental values, which are defined as “liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.”

Orbán is accused of undermining the independence of Hungary’s judiciary and media; waging a legal battle against the Central European University (CEU), founded by the Hungarian-born philanthropist George Soros; mistreating asylum seekers and refugees and introducing a law that makes it a criminal offense for lawyers and activists to help them.

Article 7 is a two-step process that moves from “preventive measures” (Article 7.1) to “punitive measures” (Article 7.2); EU governments will now have to decide whether to impose sanctions. Hungary is likely to escape the most serious sanction of suspending the country’s vote in the bloc because that would require unanimity and Poland, which has had its own run-in with the EU, has pledged to protect Orbán.

In January 2018, the European Parliament approved a non-binding resolution urging EU countries to “swiftly determine” whether Poland is breaching EU values over judicial reforms.

The threshold for enacting Article 7 is high — it requires a two-thirds majority in the European Parliament to pass. Previous attempts to hold a vote against Hungary failed because of a lack of support, in particular from the European People’s Party (EPP), the European Parliament’s pan-European center-right political group of which Orbán’s party, Fidesz, is a member.

The vote to trigger Article 7 proceeded after EPP leader Manfred Weber unexpectedly announced his support for the move. Weber’s reversal came less than two weeks after he announced his candidacy to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission. Weber’s about-face is almost certainly part of an effort to garner cross-party support for his candidacy.

Weber’s decision will raise questions about Orbán’s future with the EPP, the largest bloc in the European Parliament, precisely at a time when he has vowed to unite other nationalists to fight against the EU’s open-door migration policies.

In August, Orbán and Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini pledged to seek a coordinated strategy ahead of the March 2019 European Parliament elections to defeat the pro-immigration Party of European Socialists (PES), a pan-European party representing national-level socialist parties from all EU member states. The objective of the two men is to change the political composition of European institutions, including the European Parliament and the European Commission, to reverse the EU’s open-door migration policies.

“We need a new European Commission that is committed to the defense of Europe’s borders,” Orbán said. “We need a Commission after the European elections that does not punish those countries — like Hungary — that protect their borders.”

Orbán attacked Weber and implored the EPP to “find its way back to the path marked out by the founders … and to the values, directions, courage and character which will ensure that the Christian approach — the Christian conservative approach — also has a party in European politics, and that people who think this way are also represented in Europe. Because that is not the case today.” He added that the EPP was hamstrung by political correctness:

“In recent years we have lost our character and abandoned the teachings of our founding fathers. We have become a European political family with no character, that has no independent will, that is constantly cautious and measuring its own steps — while to all intents and purposes we are dancing to the tune of the socialists and liberals. The European People’s Party only has one goal: to avoid, heaven forbid, being castigated in the European press or in European forums.”

The Article 7 proceedings against Hungary are the brainchild of a Dutch member of the Greens party, Judith Sargentini, who steered the recommendation through the European Parliament. “This is foremost about the rights of Hungarian citizens,” she tweeted after the vote in Strasbourg.

In April 2018, Sargentini published a 26-page report that raises concerns about the judiciary, corruption, freedom of expression, and the rights of migrants in Hungary. (It might be worth mentioning that the European Parliament itself has repeatedly been accused of corruption and has steadfastly refused to cooperate with external investigators.)

Orbán, who has referred to the so-called Sargentini Report as the “Soros Report,” charges that the report’s authors failed to send even a single fact-finding delegation to Hungary and that the document is riddled with inaccuracies. He has accused Sargentini herself of acting in an anti-democratic manner:

“A few months ago … there was an election in Hungary. The Hungarian people decided what should happen, and during the election campaign we discussed all of the issues — including CEU, the NGOs, and all of the important political issues. And the people decided on these issues. And now the European Parliament is taking upon itself the task of overruling the decision made by the people of Hungary and forcing the Hungarian government to implement what they are attempting to impose on us in place of the people’s decision.”

Ahead of the vote in the European Parliament, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker delivered his 2018 “State of the Union” address — entitled, “The Hour of European Sovereignty” — in which he warned of rising nationalism and the threat it poses to the European Union. “Article 7 must be applied whenever the rule of law is threatened,” he warned.

Juncker later hailed the European Parliament’s decision:

“If I was a member of the European Parliament, I would have voted in favor of Article 7. The European Commission is using the tools we have, launching infringement procedures against countries that don’t respect EU law. I am in harmony with today’s decision.”

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó ridiculed the vote. He called it the “petty revenge” of “pro-immigration” politicians:

“Hungary and the Hungarian people have been convicted because we have proven that migration is not needed and that it can be stopped.”

Politicians from other EU countries defended Orbán’s government. In Britain, for example, pro-Brexit MEP Nigel Farage branded the European Parliament’s debate over Hungary as a “show trial” and added:

“Thank God there is at least one European leader prepared to stand up for his principles, his nation, his culture and his people, in the face of such extreme bullying.”

After the vote, Farage tweeted that the European Parliament’s decision reflected “the authoritarian grip of the EU.”

European Parliament votes to remove Hungary’s voting rights, the authoritarian grip of the EU gets even tighter.

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) September 12, 2018

In the Netherlands, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, tweeted, “Hungary is the example for all EU countries and Orbán is a hero and deserves the Nobel Prize.”

A bloody shame.

Hungary is the example for all EU countries and Orban is a hero and deserves the Nobel Prize.

He closed the borders for Islamic fortune seekers. He protects his citizens against terror and defends the identity of his country.

The EU is fraud. #NEXIT https://t.co/vY9GkroFdW

— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) September 12, 2018

Orbán, who has been in power since May 2010 and who was reelected by a landslide in April 2018, is unlikely to be deterred by the European Parliament’s action. In a defiant speech to the European Parliament on September 11, one day before the censure, Orbán delivered a stinging rebuke of the Sargentini Report in general and of the European Union in particular:

“I know that you have already formed your opinions. I know that the majority of you will vote in favor of the report. I also know that my contribution now will not sway your opinions. Yet still I have come here [to Strasbourg] because you are not about to denounce a government, but a country and a people. You will denounce the Hungary, which has been a member of the family of Europe’s Christian peoples for a thousand years; the Hungary which has contributed to the history of our great continent of Europe with its work and, when needed, with its blood. You will denounce the Hungary which rose and took up arms against the world’s largest army, against the Soviets, which made the highest sacrifice for freedom and democracy, and, when it was needed, opened its borders to its East German brothers and sisters in distress. Hungary has fought for its freedom and democracy. I stand here now and I see that Hungary is being arraigned by people who inherited democracy, not needing to assume any personal risk for the pursuit of freedom. And now these people want to denounce the Hungarian freedom-fighters of the anti-communist, democratic resistance.

“I stand here now and defend my homeland, because to Hungarians freedom, democracy, independence and Europe are matters of honor. This is why I say that the report before you is an affront to the honor of Hungary and the Hungarian people. Hungary’s decisions are made by the voters in parliamentary elections. What you are claiming is no less than saying that the Hungarian people are not sufficiently capable of being trusted to judge what is in their own interests. You think that you know the needs of the Hungarian people better than the Hungarian people themselves. Therefore, I must say to you that this report does not show respect for the Hungarian people. This report applies double standards, it is an abuse of power, it oversteps the limits on spheres of competence, and the method of its adoption is a treaty violation.

“To us in Hungary, democracy and freedom are not political questions, but moral questions. You now seek to pass moral judgement and stigmatize a country and a people on the basis of a numerical majority. You are assuming a grave responsibility when — for the first time in the history of the European Union — you seek to exclude a people from decision-making in Europe. You would strip Hungary of its right to represent its own interests within the European family that it is a member of. We have, and will continue to have, disputes: we think differently about Europe’s Christian character, and the role of nations and national cultures; we interpret the essence and mission of the family in different ways; and we have diametrically opposed views on migration. If we truly want unity in diversity, then our differences cannot be cause for the stigmatization of any country, or for excluding it from the opportunity of engaging in joint decision-making. We would never sink so low as to silence those with whom we disagree….

“Every nation and Member State has the right to decide on how to organize its life in its own country. We shall defend our borders, and we alone shall decide who we want to live with. We have built a fence and have stopped the entry of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants; we have defended Hungary, and we have defended Europe. Today, for the first time in the history of the European Union, we see a community denouncing its own border guards.

“Let us speak plainly: you want to denounce Hungary because the Hungarian people have decided that our homeland will not become an immigrant country. With due respect, but in the strongest possible terms, I reject the threats, the blackmail, the slander and fraudulent accusations levelled against Hungary and the Hungarian people by the European Parliament’s pro-immigration and pro-migrant forces. I respectfully inform you that, whatever decision you come to, Hungary shall not bow to blackmail: Hungary shall continue to defend its borders, stop illegal immigration and defend its rights – against you, too, if necessary. We Hungarians stand ready for the elections next May, when the people will finally have the chance to decide the future of Europe, and will have the opportunity to restore democracy to European politics.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2CYoiXQ Tyler Durden

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

United States politicians are coming up with some wonderful descriptive terms to help use fear to get more restrictive laws passed.  Now lawmakers are warning the spy chief of a real threat called the “deep fakes.”

Thanks to modern technology, the U.S. government ruling class now has another scary fear-mongering problem they are dubbing “deep fakes.”

Technology has reached a point where people can now create near-perfect faked videos of people saying things they never actually said, reported Tech Crunch. “Deep fakes” use existing footage mixed with artificial intelligence and machine learning to be made to look like, or at least come close to, the real thing.

Who else can see the writing on the wall and believes this could be nothing more than a fear mongering attempt to cull free speech even more? Politicians are always looking for reasons to remove rights from others, so it makes sense that they ‘d make a huge deal out of people being able to make realistic videos.  The fight to remain relevant as a politician has begun.

US lawmakers are so worried about these faked videos that they now claim they can be “used by the enemy to harm national security.” Yet, unsurprisingly, one of the first uses of deep fake videos was for porn. Creators would make videos by superimposing faces onto the bodies of others.  The real issue to the political elites though is scaring the public over “national security.”

Lawmakers think that deep fakes could be used as part of wider disinformation campaigns in an effort to sway elections or spread false news.  There it is… the fake news shadow. It isn’t the disinformation they care about, its that people just might be able to figure out for themselves who is oppressing them (hint: it isn’t Russia.)

“Deep fakes could become a potent tool for hostile powers seeking to spread misinformation,” wrote Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a letter to Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.

“As deep fake technology becomes more advanced and more accessible, it could pose a threat to United States public discourse and national security, with broad and concerning implications for offensive active measures campaigns targeting the United States,” said the letter, co-signed by Representatives Stephanie Murphy (D-FL) and Carlos Curbelo (R-FL). 

If you guessed that the government is more likely than not going to use this as an excuse to continue to kill free speech, you’d most likely be correct.

Schiff, Murphy, and Curbelo want the director of national intelligence (who oversees the nation’s intelligence community) to report back on its assessment of how deep fake technology could harm national security interests, reported Tech Crunch.  They want to know if there are countermeasures (laws, regulations, and the reduction of freedom) to protect against “foreign influence.” The DNI’s office was asked to report back to Congress by mid-December.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MwR0P9 Tyler Durden

Authored by Matt Stoller via Vice.com,

Did they prevent a full-scale collapse? Yes. Was it necessary to do it the way we did? Not at all.

These guys got off pretty easy. (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)

In 1948, the architect of the post-war American suburb, William Levitt, explained the point of the housing finance system. “No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist,” he said. “He has too much to do.”

It’s worth reflecting on this quote on the ten-year anniversary of the financial crisis, because it speaks to how the architects of the bailouts shaped our culture. Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Hank Paulson, the three key men in charge, basically argue that the bailouts they executed between 2007 and 2009 were unfair, but necessary to preserve stability. It’s time to ask, though: just what stability did they preserve?

These three men paint the financial crisis largely as a technical one. But let’s not get lost in the fancy terms they use, like “normalization of credit flows,” in discussing what happened and why. The excessively wonky tone is intentional – it’s intended to hide the politics of what happened. So let’s look at what the bailouts actually were, in normal human language.

The official response to the financial crisis ended a 75-year-old American policy of pursuing broad homeownership as a social goal. Since at least Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American leaders had deliberately organized the financial system to put more people in their own homes. In 2011, the Obama administration changed this policy, pushing renting over owning. The CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, echoed this view shortly thereafter. There are many reasons for the change, and not all of them were bad. But what’s important to understand is that the financial crisis was a full-scale assault on the longstanding social contract linking Americans with the financial system through their house.

The way Geithner orchestrated this was through a two-tiered series of policy choices. During the crisis, everyone needed money from the government, but Geithner offered money to the big guy, and not the little guy.

First, he found mechanisms, all of them very technical—and well-reported in Adam Tooze’s new book Crashed—to throw unlimited amounts of credit at institutions controlled by financial executives in the United States and Europe. (Eric Holder, meanwhile, also de facto granted legal amnesty to executives for possible securities fraud associated with the crisis.)

Second, Geithner chose to deny money and credit to the middle class in the midst of a foreclosure crisis. The Obama administration supported this by neutering laws against illegal foreclosures.

The response to the financial crisis was about reorganizing property rights. If you were close to power, you enjoyed unlimited rights and no responsibilities, and if you were far from power, you got screwed. This shaped the world into what it is today. As Levitt pointed out, when people have no stake in the system, they get radical.

Did this prevent a full-scale collapse? Yes. Was it necessary to do it the way we did? Not at all.

Geithner, Bernanke, and Paulson like to pretend that bank bailouts are inherently unpopular—that they were wise stewards resisting toxic (populist) political headwinds. But it’s not that simple. Unfair bank bailouts are unpopular, but reasonable ones are not. For an alternative, look at how a previous generation of Democrats handled a similar, though much more serious, crisis.

In 1933, when FDR took power, global banking was essentially non-functional. Bankers had committed widespread fraud on top of a rickety and poorly structured financial system. Herbert Hoover, who organized an initial bailout by establishing what was known as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, was widely mocked for secretly sending money to Republican bankers rather than ordinary people. The new administration realized that trust in the system was essential.

One of the first things Roosevelt did, even before he took office, was to embarrass powerful financiers. He did this by encouraging the Senate Banking Committee to continue its probe, under investigator Ferdinand Pecora, of the most powerful institutions on Wall Street, which were National City (now Citibank) and JP Morgan. Pecora exposed these institutions as nests of corruption. The Senate Banking Committee made public Morgan’s “preferred list,” which was the group of powerful and famous people who essentially got bribes from Morgan. It included the most important men in the country, like former Republican President Calvin Coolidge, a Supreme Court Justice, important CEOs and military leaders, and important Democrats, too.

Roosevelt also ordered his attorney general “vigorously to prosecute any violations of the law” that emerged from the investigations. New Dealers felt that “if the people become convinced that the big violators are to be punished it will be helpful in restoring confidence.” The DOJ indicted National City’s Charles Mitchell for tax evasion. This was part of a series of aggressive attacks on the old order of corrupt political and economic elites. The administration pursued these cases, often losing the criminal complaints but continuing with civil charges. This bought the Democrats the trust of the public.

When Roosevelt engaged in his own broad series of bank bailouts, the people rewarded his party with overwhelming gains in the midterm elections of 1934 and a resounding re-election in 1936. Along with an assertive populist Congress, the new administration used the bailout money in the RFC to implement mass foreclosure-mitigation programs, create deposit insurance, and put millions of people to work. He sought to save not the bankers but the savings of the people themselves.

Democrats did more than save the economy – they also restructured it along democratic lines. They passed laws to break up banks, the emerging airline industry, and electric utilities. The administration engaged in an aggressive antitrust campaign against industrial monopolists. And Roosevelt restructured the Federal Reserve so that the central bank was not “independent” but set interest rates entirely subservient to the wishes of elected officials.

In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered his view on what causes democracies to fail.

“History proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments,” he said, “but out of weak and helpless ones.”

Did the bailouts of ten years ago work? It’s a good question. I don’t see a strong and vibrant democracy in America right now. Do you?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xmf2ae Tyler Durden

If anyone still doubted President Trump’s determination to slap tariffs on all – or even more than all – Chinese goods flowing into the US, they probably don’t anymore. So far this week, the president has taken to twitter to trash his own Treasury Secretary’s efforts to restart talks with the Chinese, before Trump publicly declared on Friday that he intends to move ahead with plans to slap 25% tariffs on another $200 billion worth of goods.

Given the president’s unflinching resolve in pursuing his trade agenda, it’s understandable why a shrewd businessmen would go to great lengths to avoid getting in the middle of what looks to be a protracted geopolitical dogfight.

But unfortunately for top Wall Street firms, many of which harbor ambitions of expanding their business in China, that may no longer be an option. Because while the Trump administration has largely left them alone, the Chinese are now trying to use whatever leverage they can (i.e. preferential access to the world’s second-largest economy) to push America’s top bankers to intervene on Beijing’s behalf.

Reuters reported Friday that top Chinese officials have hastily organized an investment conference in Beijing and requested the presence of several top Wall Street firms. The conference will be chaired by former PBOC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan and ex-Goldman Sachs President John Thornton, and feature an appearance by Chinese vice-president Wang Qishan. Dubbed “the firefighter” by the Chinese people, Quishan, in addition to being the most powerful of China’s vice presidents, is also one of the senior Communist officials involved in managing the trade dispute. 

While market liberalization is certainly a priority for the Chinese, it’s difficult to imagine that these top officials are planning to attend this conference – especially with so much else going on – just to brainstorm ideas about how China can proceed with opening up its financial sector.

The subtext here is obvious: China wants to figure out who in the US financial services community can help them get through to Trump and help stop this conflict before losses in China’s currency and stock market spiral out of control. And if the carrot of access doesn’t work, China has already proven adept at leveraging the stick.

HONG KONG (Reuters) – China will ask Wall Street firms for ways to improve ties with the United States and suggestions to open up its financial sector at a day-long meeting in Beijing on Sunday, people familiar with the matter said.

The Chinese government sent invitations for the hastily-convened meeting a few weeks ago as trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies appeared to be headed for a full-blown trade war.

Given the impossible nature of the task at hand, it’s hardly surprising that several top executives – afraid of enraging Trump – are planning to avoid the meeting altogether, citing unspecified “scheduling conflicts”.

Top financial firms in both countries are sending representatives to the meeting, although heavyweight invitees such as Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman were unable to rearrange their schedules to attend the meeting, a source said.

While Reuters’ reporters apparently didn’t question this excuse, a “scoop” published on twitter earlier this week by Fox Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino, who reported that the Schwartzman & Co. are avoiding the meeting because they don’t want to feel coerced into carrying water for the Chinese.

SCOOP: Wall Street CEOs pulling out of meeting with Chinese government over trade -sources; @blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman @jpmorgan CEO Jamie Dimon will not attend; CEOs worry Chinese will try and enlist them to lobby Trump on his China trade policies more now @FoxBusiness

— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) September 11, 2018

The tweet didn’t stop Reuters from swallowing the official narrative spoon-fed to them by the “anonymous sources” cited in Reuters‘ story.

Zhou and Thornton have asked participants to give one or two specific ideas on how to further open up China’s financial sector as well as suggest ways to “forge normal U.S.-China relations for the benefit of our two countries and the world,” according to the people and a meeting agenda seen by Reuters.

The people, who have knowledge of the meeting, declined to be named as the roundtable details were not public.

The meeting ideas should be accompanied by specific action points, said one source who was briefed on the agenda.

“They don’t want something feel-good. It’s got to be specific actionable areas where reform and opening markets is needed,” said one of the sources.

Chinese government officials will aim to reassure the U.S. financial firms that Beijing is genuinely receptive to their ideas, the source added.

Reuters reported that several heavyweight names will be attending the conference…

U.S. participants at the roundtable include Citigroup’s Asia head of corporate investment banking Jan Metzger, Goldman Sachs’ newly-named president John Waldron, JPMorgan Asia CEO Nicolas Aguzin, and Morgan Stanley head of international business Franck Petitgas, the people familiar with the meeting said.

… however when approached by Reuters’ reporters, most of these companies declined to comment.

CICC, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Hong Kong’s stock exchange and securities regulator, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley declined to comment.

If anything, Wall Street’s response to these overtures is, in a way, proof that Trump is right: The Chinese are getting desperate, and the US clearly has the upper hand – at least for now.

The Wall Street Journal has it wrong, we are under no pressure to make a deal with China, they are under pressure to make a deal with us. Our markets are surging, theirs are collapsing. We will soon be taking in Billions in Tariffs & making products at home. If we meet, we meet?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2018

Fut fortunately for the Chinese, Wall Street isn’t the only industry where China has the leverage to push for a quid-pro-quo. We imagine we’ll be hearing more about China’s efforts to turn Apple’s Tim Cook and his now confirmed anti-Trump Silicon Valley peers into unwitting advocates for China’s cause in the not-too-distant future.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2p7Fvo7 Tyler Durden

Submitted by the Strategic Culture Foundation

The anonymous government official who revealed a “resistance” inside the White House has heightened the sense of doom hanging over Donald Trump’s presidency. A stream of disparaging claims from other White House insiders, the multiple criminal cases enveloping Trump’s inner circle, and the ongoing special-counsel investigation into possible collusion with the Russian government have all also added to anticipation of Trump’s imminent downfall. But the widespread perception that “the walls are closing in”; on a “ “teetering” Trump presidency is getting ahead of reality. While figures eyed as central to the suspected Trump-Russia conspiracy—campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos, longtime fixer Michael Cohen, and campaign manager Paul Manafort—have been convicted of criminal activity, their cases have not bolstered the case for collusion as many liberals had hoped.

Last week, Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying to the FBI about the timing of his contacts with a Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud. According to Papadopoulos, Mifsud claimed to have connections to Russia and information that the Kremlin had obtained Hillary Clinton’s stolen e-mails. In May 2016, Papadopoulos relayed vague details about his conversation with Mifsud to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. According to press accounts, a tip from Downer about his encounter with Papadopoulos sparked the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into alleged Trump-Russia ties.

Because Papadopoulos may have purportedly heard about stolen e-mails before their public release, he has been widely scouted as “Exhibit A” for a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy, part of a “secret channel through which the Russian government was able to communicate with the Trump campaign as it stole Democratic emails and weaponized them to help Trump win the presidency,” according to James Risen of The Intercept. In the end, Papadopoulos did not fill that role. According to special counsel Robert Mueller’s sentencing memo, Papadopoulos “did not provide ‘substantial assistance’” during his interviews in August and September of 2017. But in remarks made after his sentencing, Papadopoulos says that “I did my best…and offered what I knew.” It is not a surprise that he did not have much to offer. Not only did the Trump campaign rebuff Papadopoulos’s proposals to set up meetings with Russian officials, Papadopoulos now says that “I never met with a single Russian official in my life.”

Mueller’s sentencing memo also confirms that after FBI agents interviewed Papadopoulos in January 2017, they interviewed Mifsud just weeks later in Washington, DC. Despite his being the figure whose comments ostensibly led to the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation—making him a suspected Kremlin cutout—Mifsud was not detained then, nor has he been charged since.

Mueller appears to blame Papadopoulos for this. Papadopoulos, Mueller claims, “substantially hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question” Mifsud when they spoke to him just a few weeks later. Papadopoulos’s lies, they allege, “undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States.… The defendant’s lies also hindered the government’s ability to discover who else may have known or been told about the Russians possessing ‘dirt’ on Clinton.”

The claim is puzzling. In his sentencing memo, Mueller acknowledges that Papadopoulos “identified” Mifsud to FBI agents voluntarily, though “only after only after being prompted by a series of specific questions.” That is why Papadopoulos has not pleaded guilty to lying about Mifsud, but only about the timing of his contacts with them: He falsely told agents that he was not yet a member of the Trump campaign when he and Mifsud spoke. In that same interview, Papadopoulos told agents that Mifsud informed him that the Russians “have dirt on [Clinton]” in the form of “thousands of emails.” Given that Papadopoulos not only informed FBI agents of Mifsud’s identity but also of the “dirt” he floated, how could Papadopoulos have “hindered” their ability to find out what Mifsud knows?

As Papadopoulos appears to exit the collusion bracket, longtime Trump fixer Michael Cohen has recently emerged front and center. On July 26, CNN reported that Cohen is prepared to tell Mueller that Trump had advance knowledge of the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Russian nationals. The incident has been the subject of intense focus because Donald Trump Jr. was promised compromising information about Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Veteran Clinton operative turned Cohen spokesperson Lanny Davis fanned the flames. Hours after Cohen’s indictment on August 21, Davis told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that Cohen “is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows,” including about “the obvious possibility of a conspiracy to collude.… in the 2016 election” and even “whether or not Mr. Trump knew ahead of time” about Russian e-mail hacking “and even cheered it on.”

Davis’ qualified language (“obvious possibility,” “whether or not”) was easily overlooked, but the specter of perjury could not be. The co-chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr and Mark Warner, noted that Cohen had testified to them last fall that that he has no knowledge of any Trump-Russia collusion and that he didn’t even find out about the Trump Tower meeting until it was publicly reported in June 2017—one year after it took place. Burr and Warner also revealed that in response to CNN’s story, Cohen’s attorneys informed them that he is not changing his testimony.

Davis quickly dropped the innuendo. Asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper on August 22 if Cohen has information that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting in advance, Davis replied, “ No, he does not.” Davis also abandoned his suggestion, made just 24 hours earlier to Maddow, that Cohen can tie Trump to advance knowledge of Russian e-mail hacking. Davis told Cooper that he was “more tentative on that” and that he only meant that he believes Cohen “may or not be useful” to Mueller, even though “it’s not a certainty the way [Cohen] recalls it.” Davis was, he clarified in the same CNN interview, just relying on his own “intuition.”

Yet this clarification proved to be more consequential than perhaps Davis intended. The Washington Post and the New York Post revealed that they had used Davis as an anonymous source for their own stories “confirming” the initial July 26 CNN report. “I should have been more clear—including with you—that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis told The Washington Post, adding his regrets. Davis also continued to back off of his hacking claims, explaining that he was merely “giving an instinct that [Cohen] might have something to say of interest,” though, yet again, “I am just not sure.”

But Davis was not done; he then revealed that he had also been used as anonymous source for CNN’s initial story. This did not just raise a sourcing issue for CNN but a potential scandal: In its initial report, CNN had falsely claimed that Davis had declined to comment. This meant that CNN had not just relied on a source who no longer stood by his story, but mislead readers into believing that he was not a source. To date, CNN has yet to offer an explanation for the gaffe—which, along with the failure to explain it—is not a first.

In his dizzying retraction tour, Davis also raised doubts about another story that had been circulating for months. In April, McClatchy reported that Mueller’s team has information about Cohen that could corroborate a key claim in the Steele dossier, the DNC-funded report alleging a high-level conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. The dossier claims that Cohen visited Prague in August or September 2016 to meet with Russian officials as part of his key role “in a cover up and damage limitation operation” over the hacking of Democratic Party emails. Citing two sources, McClatchy claimed that Mueller “has evidence” that Cohen secretly visited Prague during the period in question. Davis now says that that claim is false. Cohen, Davis told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, was “never, ever in Prague.”

The only story Cohen has affirmed is the one he shared in court: that Trump, in order to influence the election outcome, directed him to make a hush-money payment to cover up for an extramarital affair. That allegation may or may not prove to be sufficient grounds for impeachment, but they decidedly do not fall under Robert Mueller’s purview.

Cohen’s indictment coincided with Paul Manafort’s conviction on tax-evasion and bank-fraud charges related to his political consulting work in Ukraine. It is often speculated that Manafort’s Ukraine stint is relevant to a Trump-Russia conspiracy plot because, the theory goes, he served Kremlin interests during his time there. The opposite is the case, as Manafort’s former partner-turned-prosecution-witness, Rick Gates, reaffirmed during trial. Gates testified that Manafort pushed his client, then–Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, to align with the European Union and away from Russia. According to Gates, Manafort was paid lucratively to craft a policy known as “Engage Ukraine,” which “became the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union.” Given that the tug-of-war between Russia and the EU (with US backing) over Ukraine sparked a full-blown international crisis and a new Cold War, Manafort’s strategy would be an odd one for a supposed Kremlin stooge.

Putting aside Manafort’s record in Ukraine, there have been attempts to tie him to a potential Russia conspiracy via his financial debts to Russian tycoon Oleg Deripaska. During the campaign, Manafort wrote to an associate about leveraging his position in the Trump camp in order to “get whole” with Deripaska, even suggesting that he offer “private briefings.” Could this have been, pundits suggest, where a collusion plot was hatched?

Deripaska denies ever having been offered private briefings by Manafort. Another impediment to tying Deripaska to a Trump-Russia collusion plot is that Deripaska has connections to the figure arguably most responsible for the allegations of collusion. Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent whose DNC-funded “dossier” alleged a longstanding Trump-Kremlin conspiracy, has served as an intermediary for contacts between Deripaska and US officials. Deripaska even has a link to Mueller and the federal agency he once headed. In 2009, when Mueller was in charge of the FBI, Deripaska ponied up millions of dollars for a secret effort to rescue a captured CIA operative, Robert Levinson, in Iran. In return, the FBI—with the encouragement of Steele—helped secure a visa for Deripaska, who had been banned from the United States for alleged ties to Russian organized crime. In short, Deripaska’s various contacts make plain that Manafort’s financial ties to him, illicit or not, do not necessarily lead to a Kremlin conspiracy.

Most critically, Mueller has yet to allege one. Prosecutors openly acknowledged before Manafort’s first trial that the case had nothing to do with “evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government,” while the judge in Manafort’s upcoming second trial notes that the collusion investigation is “wholly irrelevant to the charges in this case.”

The same could be said for all of the other charges in the Mueller investigation to date. Mueller has uncovered criminal activity, but not as of yet a conspiracy with a foreign power. Should that trend continue, it need not be a defeat for the resistance. The Russiagate fixation has diverted attention from many of Trump’s damaging policies and turned vast segments of the public into spectators of an endless drama. A political opposition mobilized around a range of issues that materially impact Americans—and no longer counting on Mueller’s investigation—may be the strongest threat that Trump could face.

Aaron MATÉ | thenation.com

via RSS https://ift.tt/2OlCWtu Tyler Durden

Artificial Intelligence is transforming the way we live, and the tech giants are racing to stay ahead of the curve.

AI-related funding totaled an estimated $15.2 billion in 2017, a 144% increase over the previous year. The U.S. tech industry leads with a 50% share of those investments, even with China swiftly closing the gap in terms of patents and AI research.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

AI itself isn’t new, but, as Visual Capitalist’s Jenny Scribani points out, boosted computing power, increased connectivity, and the sheer volume of data has paved the way for the fourth industrial revolution of AI.

“The coming era will be looked back upon as the ‘AI era,’ when AI became the defining competitive advantage for corporations, government agencies, and investment professionals,” predicts David Nadler, founder of Kensho Technologies.

THE POTENTIAL OF AI

Artificial Intelligence is less about sentience and more about accelerated learning.

AI technology looks for patterns, learns from experience, and predicts responses based on historical data. An AI-powered computer can’t produce a unique thought, but it can probably predict yours. The end result: AI is able to learn new things at such a speed that it can predict your behavior and preempt your requests.

From the advancements in natural language processing that make Siri and Alexa possible, to the machine learning advancements that give robo-advisors their trading chops, AI’s ability to simulate human thinking means it can also streamline our lives. It can preempt our needs and requests, making products and services more user friendly as machines learn our needs and figure out how to serve us better.

This makes AI a vital source of competitive advantage.

AI’S COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

In their quest to stay on top of the Silicon Valley food chain, familiar tech and retail giants are dipping their toes in AI to execute diverse strategies:

Amazon
Amazon leverages AI technology to analyze and predict your shopping patterns. Alexa is very Artificially Intelligent indeed, and the revolutionary Amazon Go model continues to push the boundaries of AI tech on the ground.

Google
Google uses machine learning and pattern recognition in its search and facial recognition services, as well as natural language processing for real-time language translation. The company has also released a series of smart home products, like the Nest thermostat. After acquiring more than 50 AI startups in 2015-16, this seems like only the beginning for Google’s AI upgrade.

Microsoft
Microsoft’s Cortana is powered by machine learning, allowing the virtual assistant to build insight and expertise over time. In 2016, the tech giant added Research and AI as their fourth silo alongside Office, Windows, and Cloud, with the stated goal of making broad-spectrum AI application more accessible and everyday machines more intelligent.

Apple
Apple is notoriously tight-lipped about their AI research, but it’s safe to say Siri is only the tip of the iceberg. The tech giant received a patent this year for augmented-reality glasses, slated for a release in 2020.

Facebook
Facebook uses artificial intelligence to suggest photo tags, populate your newsfeed, and detect bots and fake users. The social media giant has also come under fire for their widespread use of AI analytics to target users for marketing and messaging purposes.

These tech kings are driving the research that will increasingly intertwine our lives with artificial intelligence, and it’s that investment that just might secure their future.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2QqYQNz Tyler Durden

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

One of the big recent changes in American life is the ongoing mass-migration from the middle of the country to the coasts, especially those of the Southeastern and Gulf States. Florida and the Carolinas, along with Houston and surrounding Texas counties, have gained millions of new residents seeking to trade snow and monotony for sun and water. Coastal state governments have by-and-large encouraged this immigration and the resulting construction, paving, and deforestation because new residents pay taxes and developers contribute to political campaigns.

This is turning out to be a huge, perhaps insanely expensive mistake, similar in a lot of ways to out-of-control public pensions: A short-term benefit that produces long-term costs – i.e., an unfunded liability – which accumulates more-or-less secretly until something happens to turn an accounting issue into a cash flow nightmare.

Consider Houston. Over the past few decades hundreds of thousands of people have moved in, and developers have accommodated them by paving over much of the land that used to absorb floodwaters during storms. When hurricane Harvey hit in 2017, the city found itself underwater for days, with damages totaling $125 billion. Much of this was covered by tax payers via federal flood insurance.

Now fast forward to today’s North and South Carolina, also very popular destinations for Americans from colder climes, and the scene of rapid construction of homes, hotels and stores within a few miles of the ocean. In the following article, the New York Times lays out the downside of this kind of short-sighted public policy.

Why the Carolinas Have Become More Vulnerable to Hurricanes

Twenty-nine years ago this month, Hurricane Hugo barreled ashore just north of Charleston, S.C., a category 4 storm with maximum winds estimated at 140 miles an hour and the highest storm tide ever recorded on the East Coast.

Here is where people lived in the region in 1990. Hugo was the nation’s costliest hurricane ever at the time, with damages of about $7 billion.

Over the next three decades, an estimated 610,000 homes were added within 50 miles of the coastline, according to my research.

Most will be affected by Hurricane Florence, the monster storm that is advancing on the coast, with landfall expected Friday morning.

We often hear that climate change is influencing the frequency and strength of tropical storms, heat waves and wildfires, and this is certainly true, though it is too early to say what influence the warming temperatures may be having on Hurricane Florence. That answer must await a post-mortem by climate scientists. But it is also true that rapid coastal development is amplifying the impact of weather and climate events like Hurricane Hugo and those expected with Hurricane Florence over the next few days.

In fact, according to research by me and colleagues, the root cause of the country’s escalating number of weather- and climate-related disasters is not necessarily a rise in the frequency or intensity of these events but the increasing exposure and vulnerability of populations that lie in their path.

That may seem obvious, though perhaps not for the people who have moved to places that are likely to end up disaster areas someday. That fact has either escaped their notice or seems to be of little consequence to them.

This process of population and development growth that influences disaster frequency and magnitude is known as “expanding the bull’s-eye effect.” It isn’t just the population increase that is important in raising the disaster potential but also how the population and built environment are distributed across a landscape. As the targets — people, homes and businesses — become more numerous and spread, so does the likelihood that it will be hit by a tornado or hurricane or wildfire. And that expanding pattern determines the severity of the disaster.

Since 1940, development within 50 miles of the Carolina coastline has increased an estimated 2,180 percent, or by 1.3 million homes. And as I mentioned, nearly half of this development has taken place since Hurricane Hugo, and many of these homes were added in high-risk areas like floodplains.

There seems to be something of a “disaster amnesia” going on with respect to our land development practices after a calamity.

More than a decade ago, 10 leading climate experts felt compelled to issue a statement saying the debate then about whether global warming was intensifying hurricanes was a distraction from “the main hurricane problem facing the United States.” The problem, they said, was the continued “lemming-like march to the sea” in the form of unabated coastal development in vulnerable places. “These demographic trends,” they said, “are setting us up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricane disasters.”

We know much more about how the warming climate is influencing tropical storms. And in many places along the nation’s coastlines, the lemmings are still marching toward the sea.

Nearly 30 percent of the American population lives along a coast, and an even larger percentage resides in flood-prone regions. The Census Bureau recently reported that the Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions have continued to grow despite costly and damaging hurricanes, with their combined populations rising to 59.6 million people in 2016 from 51.9 million in 2000.

It is not a matter of whether a disaster will strike, but when for individuals living in many of these regions.

And when disaster knocks at the door, the bill is left to taxpayers who subsidize the National Flood Insurance Program. That money is often used to rebuild homes in the same high-risk locations. Unfortunately, given current insurance programs, rates that don’t reflect the true risk of insured entities in hazard-prone regions and the lack of incentives to persuade people not to live in these areas, the system we have is unsustainable.

We need to be smarter about where we are developing and how we’re doing it, building in resilience in any new construction in areas prone to weather and climate extremes. People who choose to live in high-risk areas should bear the cost when disaster strikes. Of course, we should be helping people hit by storms like Hurricane Florence. But I’d rather see those dollars directed to hazard mitigation, and making existing and future development better able to withstand a disaster before one hits.

Just because we can live somewhere doesn’t mean we should. After all, as the saying goes, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

Among the many crucial quotes from the above article: “In fact, according to research by me and colleagues, the root cause of the country’s escalating number of weather- and climate-related disasters is not necessarily a rise in the frequency or intensity of these events but the increasing exposure and vulnerability of populations that lie in their path.”

In other words, you don’t need climate change to make the policy of encouraging people to move to hurricane alley a bad idea. There have always been – and always will be — monster storms, so a continuation of historically normal weather guarantees the occasional Cat-5 direct hit on the Eastern Seaboard. The more people we put there, the higher the cost of cleaning up afterward.

And since we haven’t had a direct hit in quite a while, no one seems to understand just how much all those extra buildings will cost to replace. In this sense, Cat-2 Hurricane Florence is a taste of things to come, but just a taste. The main course is the inevitable “big one” that hits Miami, after which we’ll finally be able calculate this latest unfunded liability.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2CUOYc2 Tyler Durden