Tag: finance

Tomorrow at 8:30am ET, the BLS will release the October jobs report: payrolls are expected to jump to 200k from last month’s hurricane-affected 134K. However with record low unemployment and a bubbly labor market fueled by Trump’s stimulus, where labor shortages are said to be the biggest concern to companies, markets will ignore the weather-affected payrolls print and focus squarely on average hourly earnings to see if last month’s inflationary wage pressures (+2.8% Y/Y) remain, or rise significantly as consensus expects (exp. 3.1%)

Here are Wall Street’s consensus expectations:

• Non-farm Payrolls: Exp. 200k, Prev. 134k (extremely broad range of 105K to 253K)
• Unemployment Rate: Exp. 3.7%, Prev. 3.7% (NOTE: the FOMC projects unemployment will stand at 3.7% at the end of 2018)
• Average Earnings Y/Y: Exp. 3.1%, Prev. 2.8%
• Average Earnings M/M: Exp. 0.2%, Prev. 0.3%
• Average Work Week Hours: Exp. 34.5hrs, Prev. 34.5hrs
• U6 Unemployment Rate: Prev. 7.5%
• Labor Force Participation: Prev. 62.7%

The breakdown:

PAYROLLS: As ING writes, whereas forecasting payrolls growth is always more luck than science, there is even more guesswork than usual this month because there is a double hurricane effect to take into account. September’s payrolls figure of “just” 134,000 was clearly depressed by Hurricane Florence, which prevented thousands of workers in the Carolinas and Virginia from getting to work. This month there should be a clear rebound in the region with additional jobs created thanks to the rebuild/clean-up operations put in place.

However, Hurricane Michael, which hit Florida and Georgia last month, will have had a detrimental impact on payrolls in that region through worker absence. As such, markets should refrain from placing much emphasis on the actual outturn. “For what it is worth,” ING is “forecasting payrolls growth of 200,000, but to be honest, anything could happen – the range of economist forecasts is 105,000 up to 253,000, according to Bloomberg.”

In this vein, a quick side note on the ISM non-mfg survey: if payrolls follow the employment component, tomorrow’s jobs number should print in the 500,000 range, the highest since 1983. If that happens, look for 10Y yields to shoot into low earth orbit.

WAGE GROWTH: When it comes to the one number that matters most, average hourly earnings, one bank is especially optimistic: according to ING, while pay rates have been grinding higher, the bank expects to see a real breakthrough this month. The annual rate of wage growth is set to push above 3% year-on-year for the first time since April 2009. ING, however, expects to see a 0.3% month-on-month, 3.2% YoY outcome. The NFIB survey below shows that the proportion of small businesses looking to raise pay is also at the highest in the survey’s long history, which shouldn’t come as a surprise given the tightness in the job market.

Goldman (Payrolls exp. 210K) is slightly less optimistic and estimates that average hourly earnings increased 0.1% month over month and 3.0% year over year, with calendar effects a negative this month, as the survey week ended on the 13th. As shown in the chart below, Hurricane Florence also appeared to temporarily boost average hourly earnings in the Carolinas, and the unwind of those effects could reduce October average hourly earnings growth by around 0.1%.

While Goldman cannot rule out an offsetting boost from Hurricane Michael in tomorrow’s report, the timing of those disruptions would argue for a limited impact.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: The unemployment rate likely remained stable at 3.7% in October, after falling 0.17% in last month’s report (to 3.68% unrounded). Continuing claims continue to fall (-25k from survey week to survey week), and as shown below, the level of claims would argue against a rebound in the jobless rate. At the same time, the participation rate has returned to the bottom of its two-year range (62.7%), and a short-term bounce can not be ruled out.

WEATHER IMPACT: As noted above, for the second month in a row, a key focus in tomorrow’s report will be the impact of recent hurricanes, and specifically how they affected payroll growth. Barclays analysts say that in contrast to September, US initial jobless claims data is continuing to show only a modest effect from Hurricanes. In the week-ending 13 October (which captures the October data survey period), initial jobless claims fell by 5k in the week to 210k, and the four-week moving average rose only slightly to 212k from 210k. “At the state level, the very modest rise in initial claims following the hurricane that made landfall in North and South Carolina in early September appears to be reverting,” Barclays says, pointing out that initial jobless claims in North Carolina rose by around 10k initially, but was now tracking lower, while South Carolina’s rise was much more modest and has now reverted. “The relatively mild rise in initial jobless claims following the hurricane in these two states seems at odds with the notable softening in nonfarm payrolls in September,” and adds that while it believes the storm did temporarily weaken some categories of employment, it has a tough time reconciling the stability of the initial jobless claims data and the slowing of September payroll growth, and expects revisions when the report is released on Friday, adding that “for now, the signal from the claims data remains one of low rates of job separation and, in turn, healthy labor market conditions.”

TRADE WARS: There will be attention on the manufacturing jobs component of the report to assess how much of an impact trade wars is having on US manufacturers’ hiring. “We expect soft manufacturing and construction payrolls, factory payrolls have been slowing since the first tranche of tariffs in July,” UBS notes, adding “we expect to see factory employment slowing much more sharply in October after the 10% China tariffs were put in place.”

ADP PAYROLLS: ADP’s gauge of payroll growth in October beat to the upside, printing 227k job gains in the month against a consensus 187k; “whether it tell us anything about Friday’s official number is another matter altogether, because ADP won’t capture any hit from Hurricane Michael, but the official data will,” Pantheon Macroeconomics said. “ADP counts names on payrolls, while the official data only include people who were paid – anything – during the survey period,” the consultancy explains, “this means that part-timers, in particular, can drop off the official payroll count when bad weather prevented them from working during the survey week.” Pantheon says it would be very surprised to see Friday’s headlines as strong as the ADP data, “but with hurricanes making landfall in the survey weeks in both September and August – that has never happened before, as far as we know – we’re braced for anything,” it says.

LAY-OFFS: Challenger reported that October job cut announcements rose to 75.6k, largely on Verizon’s announcement that it will offer voluntary severance packages to 44k managers in an effort to trim costs. “The good news for those accepting offers is now is a good time to look for a new job, especially if they act quickly,” data compiler Challenger said. “The increase in job cut announcements could indeed indicate we’re heading toward a downturn, although employers are still holding on to their workers for the most part.” Challenger also noted in its report that the economy is at near full employment, and job creation has typically surpassed expectations. Wages remain flat, however. Meanwhile, recent fluctuations in the stock market indicate investor concerns and that tariffs are beginning to have an impact.”

FED REACTION: The US economy continues to grow strongly and with the job market continuing to tighten, there is growing evidence of pipeline pay pressures. Inflation is already above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target on all the key measures the central bank follows and rising wage growth will only add upside risks for inflation. As such, the Fed looks set to remain in tightening mode with a December rate hike looking virtually guaranteed followed by three more 25 basis point interest rate rises next year.

* * *

Below is a more nuanced breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of tomorrow’s report via Goldman:

Arguing for a stronger report:

Rebound from Hurricane Florence. State-level data for September showed a 36k drop in North and South Carolina payrolls (mom sa), consistent with a drag from Hurricane Florence of around 50k (assuming trend growth of 15k in those states). While most of these workers had likely returned to work by early October, Goldman expects the weather-related boost in tomorrow’s report to be partially offset by the negative impact of Hurricane Michael. While particularly strong (category 4), the most severe effects of Hurricane Michael appeared to be concentrated in a smaller swath of the country (mainly the Florida panhandle and parts of Georgia). Over 350k people were ordered to evacuate ahead of Hurricane Michael, compared with 1 million people for Hurricane Florence (we estimate the payroll impact for that storm at -50k) and 6.5 million Floridians during Irma (estimated payroll impact of around -180k). Power outages in Florida also appeared to affect a smaller share of the state (see red bars in Exhibit 1).

While these considerations would argue for a modest payroll effect, Michael also disrupted economic activity in several Southeastern states (after being downgraded to a tropical storm). As shown by the blue bars in the same exhibit, electricity usage declined sharply in the Deep South and Carolinas on the last day of the survey week. While uncertainty is high, we estimate that Michael will reduce the level of October payrolls by between 20k and 40k, producing a net weather effect of around +15k

Jobless claims. Initial jobless claims remained just above cycle lows during the four weeks between the payroll reference periods (averaging 212k). Continuing claims also moved lower, falling 25k between the survey weeks.

ADP. The payroll-processing firm ADP reported a 227k increase in October private payroll employment—40k above consensus and the fastest pace since February. We view the report as evidence that the pace of job growth likely remains well above potential.

Job availability. The Conference Board labor market differential—the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get—rose 2.7pt to +32.7 in October, a new cycle high. JOLTS job openings also rose to a new cycle high in the most recent report (7,136k in August).

Arguing for a weaker report:

Company-level one-offs. We expect a few company-level developments to weigh on service-sector job growth in tomorrow’s report, with a combined payroll impact of around -10k to -20k. Within the retail industry, we expect a drag from bankruptcies of Steinhoff Mattresses (closing 200 stores immediately) and Sears (closing 46 stores by November). A voluntary layoff program at Verizon (44k employees eligible) is likely to weigh on information payrolls, but we expect most of these individuals remained employed during the October survey period.[2] Finally, a hotel workers strike will reduce October job growth by 2k.

Service-sector surveys. Service-sector business surveys softened on net in October, with our non-manufacturing employment tracker pulling back from a cycle high (-1.0pt to 56.6) and our headline aggregate falling by 2.7pt. Those declines may overstate the underlying trend however, as we believe the particularly weak Richmond Fed measure was impacted by the hurricanes. Service-sector job growth rose 75k in September and averaged 145k over the last six months.

Tariff uncertainty. Trade tensions escalated further in the weeks leading up to the October reference period, as the White House imposed a 10% tariff on $200bn worth of Chinese imports on September 24th. We continue to expect that the growth and employment effects of trade frictions will be modest in the US, and accordingly, we are not embedding an explicit drag from the September tariffs in our payroll estimates for tomorrow. That being said, we note the risk that increased uncertainty or the prospect of retaliatory tariffs may have weighed on hiring.

Neutral factors:

Manufacturing surveys. Manufacturing-sector surveys were generally weaker in October, but most remain at elevated levels. Our manufacturing employment tracker fell for the fourth month in a row (-0.5pt to 57.3). Both the headline aggregate and employment subcomponent of the ISM manufacturing survey declined by more than expected in October.

Job cuts. Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas increased by 26k in October to 78k (SA by GS). On a year-over-year basis, announced job cuts rose 48k. However, these increases reflected the voluntary layoff programs in the telecom sector (discussed previously), and job cuts actually declined across the remainder of industries (+19k mom).

via RSS https://ift.tt/2yM2n1z Tyler Durden

Authored by Ritesh Jain via WorldOutOfWhack.com,

Rohit Srivastava at Indiacharts explains brilliantly the correlation in society mood, tallest statue and fate of markets

“Yesterday – the Indian Newspapers were splashed with advertisements of the Inauguration of the tallest Statue in the World constructed in the State of Gujarat. A big feat and it was undertaken by this regime in the midst of booming stock market. What can it tell us about the state of the mood in India and what lies ahead for the Indian stock market? At 182 meters this is now the Tallest Statue in the world

This was accompanied by a list of all the previous Statues that held this claim providing an interesting ground for R&D into the importance of these events.

This brought to my mind memories of the multiple articles on social mood written by Robert Prechter on the relationship between stock market peaks and construction of the words tallest buildings. He noted it was not the date of construction alone but the period when it was constructed that was important to know where we are in the long term. Without putting words in his mouth here is what he said in his Elliott Wave Theorist publication.

An interesting chart of the history of buildings near peaks is also below.

With that, let us see where we are with respect to the largest Statues in the World. It is my belief based on the work already done by the Socioeconomics Institute on the subject that the decision to construct the largest Statue in the world by Shri Narendra Modi, marks the strong social mood of the times in India. The confidence that all is well based on what has been a 15 year advance in stock prices. It also marks the final bubble phase of the Indian stock market, and based on my long term chart of the Nifty the 5th wave, in the form of an ending diagonal at the end of a Supercycle degree bull market. That it was completed yesterday is less important than that is was in construction for the past 56 months. The bids started in Oct 2013 and awarded in Oct 2014.

So now the big question is when was the second biggest statue constructed? Right into the peak of 2008 and completed by Sept 2008. The Spring Temple of Buddha though took 10 years to complete. But here is the big catch 3 of the tallest statues were completed in 2008 in months of each other and are all Buddha statues. A lot of tall buildings were getting constructed at the same time as mood was reaching a peak. We seem to have seen that with the statues in 2008.

The Ushiku Daibutsu in japan was completed in 1993 after 10 years of work and within that occurred the Supercycle degree peak in mood and the Nikkei stock index. So work started on it in the midst of the Japanese bubble that popped in 1989 but was completed only years later.

Now the Russian statue The Motherland Calls put up in 1967 a time when there was no RTSI index so it is hard to point to the stock market there. But the Statue of Liberty 1887, USA started construction in the early 1870s. It was a gift from France. That said the stock market rallied into the 1870s and then went into a long consolidation phase. What makes 1870 important is not the US stock market performance alone but that it was at the end of a global boom in railroads. So while US stocks peaked after the 1870s and consolidated for many years it was the UK charts that might be more compelling. As that period was marked by overinvestment in railroads and then banking failures. So here is a chart of the UK market cap performance from 1825-1870. Not the clearest view of the period but a zoom into what happened after 1873 for US stocks.

The next and final chart shows the US from 1950 to date

Lastly what did the railroad boom look like? The pre 1970 UK market boom was put together in one paper by Graeme G Acheson, probably written for Cambridge University but I found it online listed on many websites and am picking the chart from there so you know what it was like before the Statue was gifted to the US.

Now you may consider the evidence here coincidental and you can also think that the start dates of building are way before the bubble peaks. However, the moment I laid my eyes on an advertisement that spawned across the newspapers it appeared as a reflection of the positive mood of the times and it was worth the effort digging into it this morning. I am especially taken up by it because it comes at the end of India’s Supercycle degree bull market that is ending with an ending diagonal in my opinion. And if this tallest statue is a red flag then we have held it up wide and loud for the world to see and note. While most would see it as a sign of confidence, socionomic studies see it as the point of maximum confidence just as the tide is about to turn

My two cents…

I spend a lot of time understanding society mood. Pessimism leads to skepticism. Skepticism leads to optimism. Optimism leads to euphoria and the cycle repeat itself. The statue is a sign of late Euphoria…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2qw2TfT Tyler Durden

James O’Keefe’s undercover operatives at Project Veritas have done it again; this time filming campaign staffers for Congressman and US Senate candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke seemingly engaging in the illegal use of campaign resources to help transport Honduran nationals traveling in the Central American caravan. 

O’Rourke staffers Dominic Chacon and AnaPaula Themann admit to facilitating transportation to airports and bus stations.

Via Project Veritas: 

Chacon: “The Hondurans, yeah… I’m going to go get some food right now, like just some stuff to drop off…”

Themann: “How did they get through?”

Chacon: “Well I think they accepted them as like asylum-seekers… So, I’m going to get some groceries and some blankets…”

Themann: “Don’t ever repeat this and stuff but like if we just say that we’re buying food for a campaign event, like the Halloween events…”

Chacon: “That’s not a horrible idea, but I didn’t hear anything. Umm, we can wait until tomorrow for that.”

Themann: “Well that’s exactly the food we need. And I will just mark it as, I do have dozens of block walkers.”

WATCH: Beto campaign manager says “don’t worry” about using campaign resources to support caravan migrants in Texas; Staff says “I just hope nobody that’s the wrong person finds out about this.” pic.twitter.com/oSk29u6736

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 2, 2018

NEW: Beto Campaign got a tip about the caravan migrants who arrived in Texas, and martialed the campaign staff to act. Whether or not it was legal did not seem to concern him. “For me, I can just ignore the rules and I’m like f**k it.” Full — https://t.co/ZKR7XsMZMN pic.twitter.com/YgPjEmdtf1

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 2, 2018

WATCH: Beto O’Rourke campaign staff explain how they go about concealing their use of campaign funds to support caravan migrants — Full video: https://t.co/ZKR7XsMZMN pic.twitter.com/AaZ95X8gIm

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 2, 2018

“Don’t ever repeat this”

Featured in this report are campaign staffers who work on Congressman O’Rourke’s US Senate campaign discussing how they use campaign resources to help Honduran aliens and transport them to airports and bus stations. Said Dominic Chacon and AnaPaula Themann, who work on O’Rourke’s campaign:

Chacon: “The Hondurans, yeah… I’m going to go get some food right now, like just some stuff to drop off…”

Themann: “How did they get through?”

Chacon: “Well I think they accepted them as like asylum-seekers… So, I’m going to get some groceries and some blankets…”

Themann: “Don’t ever repeat this and stuff but like if we just say that we’re buying food for a campaign event, like the Halloween events…”

Chacon: “That’s not a horrible idea, but I didn’t hear anything. Umm, we can wait until tomorrow for that.”

Themann: “Well that’s exactly the food we need. And I will just mark it as, I do have dozens of block walkers.”

Using “pre-paid credit cards” … “some sort of violation”

A Project Veritas Action attorney reviewed the footage and assessed:

“The material Project Veritas Action Fund captured shows campaign workers covering up the true nature of spending of campaign funds and intentionally misreporting them. This violates the FEC’s rules against personal use and misreporting. It also violates Section 1001, making a false statement to the federal government. The FEC violations impose civil penalties, including fines of up to $10,000 or 200 percent of the funds involved. Violations of Section 1001 are criminal and include imprisonment of up to five years.”

Chacon and Themann also explain how they go about concealing their use of campaign funds for alien support purposes:

Themann: “There’s actually stores that just mark it as ‘food’ they don’t mark different types… at Albertsons, on the receipts, it marks it just based off of brand…”

Chacon: “I think we can use that with those [campaign pre-paid] cards to buy some food, all that s**t can be totally masked like, oh we just wanted a healthy breakfast!”

Themann says that she doesn’t “want to make it seem like all of us are from [the O’Rourke campaign]” when going to distribute supplies to the Honduran aliens. She adds, “I just hope nobody that’s the wrong person finds out about this.”

Chacon elaborates on the usage of pre-paid campaign cards, saying, “We’re going to use more of those cards to get them more supplies too. So it’s all going to work out. I’m done being nice. I’m done being professional. [Be]cause nothing is professional. None of this is like s**t there is a rule book for, you know?”

Later in the report, Chacon also reveals “there’s not really an approval process” regarding the usage of the pre-paid cards, and that “we can just go and get the food and we can come up with a BS excuse like as to why we needed to get this stuff.” He adds, “Under the table just sort of do it.”

“Nobody needs to know”

Chacon explains that Jody Casey, the campaign manager for the O’Rourke campaign, was happy to hear about their efforts supporting aliens with campaign funds:

Chacon: “She texted us afterward and was like, I’m so happy that we have a staff that gets it and was there, I was so happy to see y’all there, still working, still contributing, we have the best team ever… she was good about it.”

Journalist: “So, Jody knows?”

Chacon: “Well, she doesn’t know we used the pre-paid card, but she doesn’t need to know.”

Added Chacon, when discussing the possibility for using campaign vans to help the Honduran aliens, “we could probably get away with using the vans… Nobody needs to know.” Chacon also says, “For me, I can just ignore the rules and I’m like f**k it.”

When asked about using campaign resources to help the Honduran aliens, Casey said “don’t worry”:

Journalist: “It just made me really concerned, like, you know, because I know that we’re using some of the campaign resources to help with the migrants and like, I just didn’t want anybody to get in trouble with that…”

Journalist: “Like I didn’t want them to ask me any questions about people using resources…”

Jody Casey: “Don’t worry.”

Andrea Reyes, who also works on the O’Rourke campaign, revealed that she has text messages showing she received approval for using the pre-paid cards:

Reyes: “The thing is yeah, as long as we’re not advertising it. I mean yeah, I don’t really know. They said it was fine sooo *throws hands up* I mean I don’t know, okay. I told you about it! I have the text messages to prove it, sooo…”

Journalist: “So you told Jody?”

Reyes: “Yeah. I told Jody and I told my director.”

When asked about using campaign vans to assist the Honduran aliens, Chacon reveals that they are going to transport the aliens to airports and bus stations:

Chacon: “… we’re going to give rides to some of the immigrants too. Like to the airport, to the bus station, like why not, you know?”

Just asked campaign manager @jodyforbeto Jody Casey about the tapes we’re about to launch on @BetoORourke appearing to show campaign funds used illegally for caravan purposes. The footage implicates Jody and her staff. She said “no comment” multiple times. Launch in an hour… pic.twitter.com/Oh1KvZa8yw

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 2, 2018

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

Authored by Michael Klare via The Unz Review,

When it comes to relations between Donald Trump’s America, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and Xi Jinping’s China, observers everywhere are starting to talk about a return to an all-too-familiar past. “Now we have a new Cold War,” commented Russia expert Peter Felgenhauer in Moscow after President Trump recently announced plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The Trump administration is “launching a new Cold War,” said historian Walter Russell Mead in the Wall Street Journal, following a series of anti-Chinese measures approved by the president in October. And many others are already chiming in.

Recent steps by leaders in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing may seem to lend credence to such a “new Cold War” narrative, but in this case history is no guide. Almost two decades into the twenty-first century, what we face is not some mildly updated replica of last century’s Cold War, but a new and potentially even more dangerous global predicament.

The original Cold War, which lasted from the late 1940s until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, posed a colossal risk of thermonuclear annihilation. At least after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, however, it also proved a remarkably stable situation in which, despite local conflicts of many sorts, the United States and the Soviet Union both sought to avoid the kinds of direct confrontations that might have triggered a mutual catastrophe. In fact, after confronting the abyss in 1962, the leaders of both superpowers engaged in a complex series of negotiations leading to substantial reductions in their nuclear arsenals and agreements intended to reduce the risk of a future Armageddon.

What others are now calling the New Cold War — but I prefer to think of as a new global tinderbox — bears only the most minimal resemblance to that earlier period. As before, the United States and its rivals are engaged in an accelerating arms race, focused on nuclear and “conventional” weaponry of ever-increasing range, precision, and lethality. All three countries, in characteristic Cold War fashion, are also lining up allies in what increasingly looks like a global power struggle.

But the similarities end there. Among the differences, the first couldn’t be more obvious: the U.S. now faces two determined adversaries, not one, and a far more complex global conflict map (with a corresponding increase in potential nuclear flashpoints). At the same time, the old boundaries between “peace” and “war” are rapidly disappearing as all three rivals engage in what could be thought of as combat by other means, including trade wars and cyberattacks that might set the stage for far greater violence to follow. To compound the danger, all three big powers are now engaging in provocative acts aimed at “demonstrating resolve” or intimidating rivals, including menacing U.S. and Chinese naval maneuvers off Chinese-occupied islands in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, rather than pursue the sort of arms-control agreements that tempered Cold War hostilities, the U.S. and Russia appear intent on tearing up existing accords and launching a new nuclear arms race.

These factors could already be steering the world ever closer to a new Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world came within a hairsbreadth of nuclear incineration. This one, however, could start in the South China Sea or even in the Baltic region, where U.S. and Russian planes and ships are similarly engaged in regular near-collisions.

Why are such dangers so rapidly ramping up? To answer this, it’s worth exploring the factors that distinguish this moment from the original Cold War era.

It’s a Tripolar World, Baby

In the original Cold War, the bipolar struggle between Moscow and Washington — the last two superpowers left on planet Earth after centuries of imperial rivalry — seemed to determine everything that occurred on the world stage. This, of course, entailed great danger, but also enabled leaders on each side to adopt a common understanding of the need for nuclear restraint in the interest of mutual survival.

The bipolar world of the Cold War was followed by what many observers saw as a “unipolar moment,” in which the United States, the “last superpower,” dominated the world stage. During this period, which lasted from the collapse of the Soviet Union to the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Washington largely set the global agenda and, when minor challengers arose — think Iraq’s Saddam Hussein — employed overwhelming military power to crush them. Those foreign engagements, however, consumed huge sums of money and tied down American forces in remarkably unsuccessful wars across a vast arc of the planet, while Moscow and Beijing — neither so wealthy nor so encumbered — were able to begin their own investment in military modernization and geopolitical outreach.

Today, the “unipolar moment” has vanished and we are in what can only be described as a tripolar world. All three rivals possess outsized military establishments with vast arrays of conventional and nuclear weapons. China and Russia have now joined the United States (even if on a more modest scale) in extending their influence beyond their borders diplomatically, economically, and militarily. More importantly, all three rivals are led by highly nationalistic leaders, each determined to advance his country’s interests.

A tripolar world, almost by definition, will be markedly different from either a bipolar or a unipolar one and conceivably far more discordant, with Donald Trump’s Washington potentially provoking crises with Moscow at one moment and Beijing the next, without apparent reason. In addition, a tripolar world is likely to encompass more potential flash points. During the whole Cold War era, there was one crucial line of confrontation between the two major powers: the boundary between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations in Europe. Any flare-up along that line could indeed have triggered a major commitment of force on both sides and, in all likelihood, the use of so-called tactical or theater atomic weapons, leading almost inevitably to full-scale thermonuclear combat. Thanks to such a risk, the leaders of those superpowers eventually agreed to various de-escalatory measures, including the about-to-be-cancelled INF Treaty of 1987 that banned the deployment of medium-range ground-launched missiles capable of triggering just such a spiral of ultimate destruction.

Today, that line of confrontation between Russia and NATO in Europe has been fully restored (and actually reinforced) along a perimeter considerably closer to Russian territory, thanks to NATO’s eastward expansion into the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and the Baltic republics in the era of unipolarity. Along this repositioned line, as during the Cold War years, hundreds of thousands of well-armed soldiers are now poised for full-scale hostilities on very short notice.

At the same time, a similar line of confrontation has been established in Asia, ranging from Russia’s far-eastern territories to the East and South China Seas and into the Indian Ocean. In May, the Pentagon’s Pacific Command, based in Hawaii, was renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, highlighting the expansion of this frontier of confrontation. At points along this line, too, U.S. planes and ships are encountering Chinese or Russian ones on a regular basis, often coming within shooting range. The mere fact that three major nuclear powers are now constantly jostling for position and advantage over significant parts of the planet only increases the possibility of clashes that could trigger a catastrophic escalatory spiral.

The War Has Already Begun

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR engaged in hostile activities vis-à-vis each other that fell short of armed combat, including propaganda and disinformation warfare, as well as extensive spying. Both also sought to expand their global reach by engaging in proxy wars — localized conflicts in what was then called the Third World aimed at bolstering or eliminating regimes loyal to one side or the other. Such conflicts would produce millions of casualties but never lead to direct combat between the militaries of the two superpowers (although each would commit its forces to key contests, the U.S. in Vietnam, the USSR in Afghanistan), nor were they allowed to become the kindling for a nuclear clash between them. At the time, both countries made a sharp distinction between such operations and the outbreak of a global “hot war.”

In the twenty-first century, the distinction between “peace” and “war” is already blurring, as the powers in this tripolar contest engage in operations that fall short of armed combat but possess some of the characteristics of interstate conflict. When President Trump, for example, first announced tough import tariffs and other economic penalties against China, his stated intent was to overcome an unfair advantage that country, he claimed, had gained in trade relations. “For months, we have urged China to change these unfair practices, and give fair and reciprocal treatment to American companies,” he asserted in mid-September while announcing tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. It’s clear, however, that his escalating trade “war” is also meant to hobble the Chinese economy and so frustrate Beijing’s drive to achieve parity with the United States as a major world actor. The Trump administration seeks, as the New York Times’s Neil Irwin observed, to “isolate China and compel major changes to Chinese business and trade practices. The ultimate goal… is to reset the economic relationship between China and the rest of the world.”

In doing so, the president is said to be particularly keen on disrupting and crippling Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” plan, an ambitious scheme to achieve mastery in key technological sectors of the global economy, including artificial intelligence and robotics, something that would indeed bring China closer to that goal of parity, which Trump and his associates are determined to sabotage. In other words, for China, this is no mere competitive challenge but a potentially existential threat to its future status as a great power. As a result, expect counter-measures that are likely to further erode the borders between peace and war.

And if there is any place where such borders are particularly at risk of erosion, it’s in cyberspace, an increasingly significant arena for combat in the post-Cold War world. While an incredible source of wealth to companies that rely on the Internet for commerce and communications, cyberspace is also a largely unpatrolled jungle where bad actors can spread misinformation, steal secrets, or endanger critical economic and other operations. Its obvious penetrability has proven a bonanza for criminals and political provocateurs of every stripe, including aggressive groups sponsored by governments eager to engage in offensive operations that, while again falling short of armed combat, pose significant dangers to a targeted country. As Americans have discovered to our horror, Russian government agents exploited the Internet’s many vulnerabilities to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and are reportedly continuing to meddle in America’s electoral politics two years later. China, for its part, is believed to have exploited the Internet to steal American technological secrets, including data for the design and development of advanced weapons systems.

The United States, too, has engaged in offensive cyber operations, including the groundbreaking 2010 “Stuxnet” attack that temporarily crippled Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. It reportedly also used such methods to try to impair North Korean missile launches. To what degree U.S. cyberattacks have been directed against China or Russia is unknown, but under a new “National Cyber Strategy” unveiled by the Trump administration in August, such a strategy will become far more likely. Claiming that those countries have imperiled American national security through relentless cyberattacks, it authorizes secret retaliatory strikes.

The question is: Could trade war and cyberwar lead one day to regular armed conflict?

Muscle-Flexing in Perilous Times

Such dangers are compounded by another distinctive feature of the new global tinderbox: the unrestrained impulse of top officials of the three powers to advertise their global assertiveness through conspicuous displays of military power, including encroaching on the perimeters, defensive or otherwise, of their rivals. These can take various forms, including overly aggressive military “exercises” and the deployment of warships in contested waters.

Increasingly massive and menacing military exercises have become a distinctive feature of this new era. Such operations typically involve the mobilization of vast air, sea, and land forces for simulated combat maneuvers, often conducted adjacent to a rival’s territory.

This summer, for example, the alarm bells in NATO went off when Russia conducted Vostok 2018, its largest military exercise since World War II. Involving as many as 300,000 troops, 36,000 armored vehicles, and more than 1,000 planes, it was intended to prepare Russian forces for a possible confrontation with the U.S. and NATO, while signaling Moscow’s readiness to engage in just such an encounter. Not to be outdone, NATO recently completed its largest exercise since the Cold War’s end. Called Trident Venture, it fielded some 40,000 troops, 70 ships, 150 aircraft, and 10,000 ground combat vehicles in maneuvers also intended to simulate a major East-West clash in Europe.

Such periodic troop mobilizations can lead to dangerous and provocative moves on all sides, as ships and planes of the contending forces maneuver in contested areas like the Baltic and Black Seas. In one incident in 2016, Russian combat jets flewprovocatively within a few hundred feet of a U.S. destroyer while it was sailing in the Baltic Sea, nearly leading to a shooting incident. More recently, Russian aircraft reportedly came within five feet of an American surveillance plane flying over the Black Sea. No one has yet been wounded or killed in any of these encounters, but it’s only a matter of time before something goes terribly wrong.

The same is true of Chinese and American naval encounters in the South China Sea. China has converted some low-lying islets and atolls it claims in those waters into miniature military installations, complete with airstrips, radar, and missile batteries — steps that have been condemned by neighboring countries with similar claims to those islands. The United States, supposedly acting on behalf of its allies in the region, as well as to protect its “freedom of navigation” in the area, has sought to counter China’s provocative buildup with aggressive acts of its own. It has dispatched its warships to waters right off those fortified islands. The Chinese, in response, have sent vessels to harass the American ones and only recently one of them almost collided with a U.S. destroyer. Vice President Pence, in an October 4th speech on China at the Hudson Institute, referred to that incident, saying, “We will not be intimidated, and we will not stand down.”

What comes next is anyone’s guess, since “not standing down” roughly translates into increasingly aggressive maneuvers.

On the Road to World War III?

Combine all of this — economic attacks, cyber attacks, and ever more aggressive muscle-flexing military operations — and you have a situation in which a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis between the U.S. and China or the U.S. and Russia or even involving all three could happen at any time. Add the apparent intent of the leaders of all three countries to abandon the remaining restraints on the acquisition of nuclear weapons in order to seek significant additions to their existing arsenals and you have the definition of an extremely dangerous situation. In February, for instance, President Trump gave the green light to what may prove to be a $1.6 trillion overhaul of the American nuclear arsenal initially contemplated in the Obama years, intended to “modernize” existing delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and long-range strategic bombers. Russia has embarked on a similar overhaul of its nuclear stockpile, while China, with a much smaller arsenal, is undertaking modernization projects of its own.

Equally worrisome, all three powers appear to be pursuing the development of theater nuclear weapons intended for use against conventional forces in the event of a major military conflagration. Russia, for example, has developed several short- and medium-range missiles capable of delivering both nuclear and conventional warheads, including the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile that, American officials claim, already violates the INF Treaty. The United States, which has long relied on aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons for use against massive conventional enemy threats, is now seeking additional attack options of its own. Under the administration’s Nuclear Policy Review of February 2018, the Pentagon will undertake the development of a “low-yield” nuclear warhead for its existing submarine-launched ballistic missiles and later procure a nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile.

While developing such new weapons and enhancing the capability of older ones, the major powers are also tearing down the remaining arms control edifice. President Trump’s October 20th announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the 1987 INF treaty to develop new missiles of its own represents a devastating step in that direction. “We’ll have to develop those weapons,” he told reporters in Nevada after a rally. “We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.”

How do the rest of us respond to such a distressing prospect in an increasingly imperiled world? How do we slow the pace of the race to World War III?

There is much that could, in fact, be done to resist a new nuclear arms confrontation. After all, it was massive public pressure in the 1980s that led the U.S. and USSR to sign the INF Treaty in the first place. But in order to do so, a new world war would have to be seen as a central danger of our time, potentially even more dangerous than the Cold War era, given the three nuclear-armed great powers now involved. Only by positioning that risk front and center and showing how many other trends are leading us, pell-mell, in such a direction, can the attention of a global public already distracted by so many other concerns and worries be refocused.

Is a nuclear World War III preventable? Yes, but only if preventing it becomes a central, common objective of our moment. And time is already running out.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Py0bo6 Tyler Durden

A new poll this week showed more than 70% of U.S. firms operating in Southern China are considering delaying further investment in the country and are moving manufacturing facilities to other countries as the trade war deepens, said Reuters.

According to the poll by the American Chamber of Commerce in South China, which surveyed over 200 companies, U.S. firms operating in China warned – they are experiencing extreme difficulties from trade disputes than firms from other countries.

64% of the companies said they were planning to relocate supply chains outside of China, but only 1% said they would consider establishing manufacturing bases in North America.

“While more than 70% of the U.S. companies are considering delaying or canceling investment in China, and relocation of some or all manufacturing out of China, only half of their Chinese counterparts share the same consideration,” the AmCham report said.

As the trade war deepens, supply chains in China are being forced to shift to Southeast Asia, the survey found.

U.S. firms reported that trade wars have increased competition from rivals in Vietnam, Germany, and Japan; while Chinese companies said they faced increased competition from Vietnam, India, the U.S., and South Korea.

Harley Seyedin, president of AmCham South China, told Reuters that customers are slowing down orders or not placing them at all. An ominous sign that global growth is now waning and a possible worldwide recession could be near.

“It could very well be that people are holding back on placing orders until times are more certain or it could very well be that they are shifting to other competitors who are willing to offer cheaper products, even sometimes at a loss, in order to get market share,” he said.

“One of the most difficult things about market share is once you lose it, it is very hard to get back.”

The survey found that wholesale and retail sectors have suffered the most from U.S. tariffs, while Chinese retaliatory duties have punished agriculture-related businesses. 

The survey was conducted between Sept. 21 and Oct. 10, shortly after the Trump administration slapped another $200 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese goods. Beijing then retaliated with additional tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. products, with risks of a full-blown trade war in 2019.

Nearly 85% of U.S. firms said they have suffered from the combined tariffs, compared with just 70% of their Chinese counterparts.

One of the biggest concerns from all respondents was the rising cost of goods sold, which resulted in declining profits.

“One-third of companies estimated the trade dispute had reduced business volumes ranging from $1 million to $50 million, while nearly one in 10 manufacturers reported high-volume business losses of $250 million or more,” said Reuters.

The survey also found evidence that export-heavy Chinese cities and provinces have entered into an economic slowdown because of the trade war.

Guangdong, China’s largest province by gross domestic product, reported a drop in exports in the first eight months from a year earlier.

While the trade war is causing supply chain disruptions and leading to waning global growth momentum, it seems global stock markets have caught wind of the danger.

The selloff in October could finish as the worst month for MSCI’s all-country index in seven years — with declines now exceeding 15%.

The global bear market is now spreading, from China to broader emerging markets to European autos and banks and almost 65% constituent stocks of MSCI’s all-country world index. Even the FANG+TM index of U.S. and world tech stocks joined the bearish party.

$8 trillion has been already wiped off of global stocks as the threat of a full-blown trade war increases for 2019. This also comes at a time when the Federal Reserve and ECB show no sign of reversing their tightening programs and China stimulus is not working. Storm clouds are gathering.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Jum6qQ Tyler Durden

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Some political observers in the United States are saying that next week’s midterm voting for seats in the Senate and House of Representatives as well as a number of governorships is the most important national election since those in 1968 and 1980.

The 1968 voting saw a “law and order” Richard Nixon win the presidency in a rebuke to Lyndon Johnson’s “soft” handling of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements while Ronald Reagan won in 1980 at a time of economic turmoil, in part running on a similar “get-tough” platform to replace the seemingly hapless and indecisive Jimmy Carter.

In both 1968 and 1980 the election produced a decisive turn in direction by government, leading eventually to an end of the Vietnam War by Nixon and a more assertive foreign policy by Reagan. Though the upcoming election is midterm rather than a presidential, those who are seeing it as important hope that flipping control of the two houses of congress will check President Donald Trump and force him to change course in a number of areas.

The election is, in fact, an accountability moment for Trump’s policies as seen by the American public. If there is a blue wave in congress and in the governorships, Trump will inevitably have to take notice and his impeachment becomes a real possibility.

But will that happen? The lead-up to the 2018 midterm election is playing out very much like the 2016 presidential election. In both cases the punditry and media have been promising an easy win for the Democrats, but winning will require selling something to voters that is more than just hatred of Trump.

Unfortunately for them, the Democrats are largely clueless on issues that matter to voters and continue to be a party that reactively “blames the Russians” while preaching “diversity” as if it were a solution to what ails the country.

They studiously ignore the fact that opinion polling suggests that there are two issues that really concern Americans.

Top of the list is health care. Anyone who actually pays for health insurance out of his or her own pocket will no doubt observe how healthcare costs have skyrocketed under Obamacare to the point where insurance is available but unaffordable, with premiums that in many cases have trebled per month over the past four years. The real damage to affordable health care in America has been done by the Democrats and those who are personally paying for insurance know that.

Since the Republicans do not have a health care plan but are resolved to repeal Obamacare, they win on the issue with voters.

The second most important issue is immigration, both legal exploitation of existing loopholes in the system and illegals. The legal immigration problem includes birthright citizenship, when foreigners come to the U.S. to deliver babies who automatically become American citizens. Trump has indicated he will ban the practice by executive order.

Legal immigration problems also include those who are allowed to get green cards legally and then proceed to bring their entire families over including cousins and relatives by marriage. That was not the intent of the 1965 legislation. In fact, chain immigration was dismissed as a possible consequence of the law, with President Lyndon Johnson and Democratic congressmen including Senator Ted Kennedy assuring the public that it would not occur. Of course, they were wrong. Or they were lying. They were also Democrats.

The Democratic solution to the problem of illegal immigration is, apparently, to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), giving the United States open borders. Even given the fact that the horrible mess in Central America is the result of Washington’s meddling in its countries for the past 100 years, that does not necessarily mean the solution is an open doors policy that will drastically change America. Bringing in thousands or even millions of uneducated and unskilled migrants who do not speak English and then requiring local governments to educate, house and feed them is a recipe for disaster. Indeed, it has already proven to be just that for many communities, with standards declining and neighborhoods in decay.

There is considerable suspicion that the current mass migration from Central America is being organized and funded by Democrat George Soros to coincide with the election, and it only angers the voters who remember a time when local communities were safe places where everyone knew their neighbors and worked hard to get along. Today the social justice warriors, like Soros and other leading Democrats, have made a sense of community a crime because it does not invite enough diversity.

If one compares how the two parties stand on immigration, the Republicans win easily as they are pledged to stop the illegals and reduce the number of currently legal immigrants. It is a major issue for voters and the Democrats are predictably on the wrong side of it, just as they are with health care.

And the Democrats are also tactically inept. Having the widely despised Clintons and Obama out campaigning for Democratic candidates will surely encourage nervous Republicans to get out to vote. So, on balance, the GOP could do very well next week with issues-focused voters and might retain its advantage in both houses of congress.

If that is so, the complaining from the Democrats will start immediately. Will their failure be blamed on the Russians again this time? 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2JDf4QN Tyler Durden

Mossad has claimed responsibility for tipping off Danish authorities after they thwarted an alleged terror plot by Tehran to assassinate three opposition figures living in Denmark, according to a senior Israeli intelligence official quoted in the Times of Israel.

This comes days after it was revealed this week that a Norwegian citizen of Iranian background was arrested in Sweden on Oct. 21 in connection with the plot and extradited to Denmark. The head of Danish intelligence announced on Tuesday that the assassination was meant to target the leader of the Danish branch of the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz (ASMLA) which seeks a separate state for ethnic Arabs in Iran’s oil-producing southwestern province of Khuzestan.

Israeli officials now say European authorities were tipped off by its elite foreign intelligence service, according to the Times of Israel report: 

The information about Israel’s involvement in the thwarting of the plot was first released to a small number of journalists by a “senior official,” but was later confirmed by others.

According to Israel, the Mossad gave Denmark the information about the Iranian plot to kill three Iranians suspected of belonging to the anti-regime Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz.

The suspect in custody has denied the charges, which have also been slammed by Tehran as a “false flag attempt” to frame Iran and further tarnish its reputation and global standing.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif  issued the following statement via Twitter on Wednesday: “Mossad’s perverse & stubborn planting of false flags (more on this later) only strengthens our resolve to engage constructively with the world,” he wrote. 

Though neither Denmark nor Sweden where the suspect was apprehended would confirm whether they had assistance from Mossad, Danish intelligence chief Finn Borch Andersen said at a press conference, “We are dealing with an Iranian intelligence agency planning an attack on Danish soil,” and said further, “Obviously, we can’t and won’t accept that.”

However, Iranian FM Zarif followed his tweet alleging a Mossad orchestrated false flag with a chronology of events he said suggests a “Mossad program to kill the JCPOA”:

Incredible series of coincidences. Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA? pic.twitter.com/Xg5e0C5DAA

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) November 1, 2018

During another press conference by European authorities involving Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen, he said that Denmark believes the Iranian government was behind the attempted attack, and that the Danish ambassador has been recalled from Iran. Samuelsen also said that Denmark will push for EU-wide sanctions against Iran in light of the attempted assassination.

During the conference, Samuelsen also said evidence presented to him by Danish intelligence leaves “no doubt” Iran’s government was behind the plan, and said that behavior by Iranian intelligence was not restricted to Denmark, causing alarm across several European nations. At the same time, Samuelsen said that Denmark doesn’t want the EU to withdraw from nuclear deal, a pact which is “in our best interests” and yet it wasn’t clear how it could co-exist with a new round of EU sanctions against Tehran.

Meanwhile these latest accusations of Iranian assassination plots in Europe follow prior revelations of a separate suspected Iranian plot to target a Paris rally by an opposition group in June, which led to the arrest of a number of Iranians in Europe over the summer. 

President Trump had referenced the summer incident and others to bolster his case that European countries should follow Washington’s lead in pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions, most of which are set to kick back into effect next week, on November 5th. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2RtFRS3 Tyler Durden

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Middle-class families, which used to be the backbone of the United States economy are becoming poorer. Despite the constant bombardment of news of a “healthy economy,” 62% of middle-class families struggle to afford a basic middle-class lifestyle.

Even though the unemployment rate that has reached a 50-year low of 3.7 percent, most jobs across the U.S. don’t support a middle-class or better lifestyle, leaving many Americans struggling, according to a new study. When factoring in both wages and the cost of living in the metro area where the job is located, 62% struggle to provide a middle-class lifestyle according to the study by Third Way, a think tank that leans center-left on the political spectrum.

“There’s an opportunity crisis in the country,” says Jim Kessler, vice president of policy for Third Way and editor of the report.

“It explains some of the economic uneasiness and, frankly, the political uneasiness” even amid the most robust U.S. economy and labor market since before the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009.

But is the economy robust? Or are we being fed a line by the mainstream media? The middle class is not thriving, and increased regulations and higher taxes make it difficult for people to branch out on their own and create their own business.

“I’m frustrated with the fact that I’m not going to be able to save anything because my rent is so high,” says Esther Akutekha, who says she’s 30ish and pays $1440 per month to rent an apartment. Akutekha is a public relations specialist and her job pays more than $50,000 a year, but she’s still struggling. “I don’t even know if I can afford” to have children,” she added according to USA Today.

A slight majority of Americans, 52 percent, do live in middle-class households, according to recent annual reports by Pew Research Center. And another 20 percent or so live in upper-income households. But that’s because they’re juggling multiple jobs, for example, or relying on investments, an inheritance or other household members who may have higher-paying jobs. –USA Today

The findings of this new report highlight how scarce opportunity has become in the modern economy. Less than half of available jobs will offer a middle-class or better lifestyle. According to Third Way, to put this another way, only 38% of jobs pay more than the equivalent of $44,066 per year in the median cost of living region in the country.

The report also made comparisons based on housing costs in certain cities. For example:

A machinist in Cedar Rapids makes on average $45,470, well short of the $57,220 the same job pays in San Francisco. But the lower paid Cedar Rapids machinist is leading a middle-class life while their San Francisco counterpart falls well short. Same job; different life. –Third Way

But the dwindling middle class is nothing new. The results from Third Way‘s model indicate that the opportunity to earn a good living is scarce throughout the United States and it will no doubt only continue to worsen.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2P2PWIR Tyler Durden

After their leaders pledged to strengthen bilateral trade and military cooperation at a bilateral summit last month, Russia and India announced earlier this week that they had sealed a long-discussed $6 billion arms deal despite threats of economic sanctions from Washington. And in the latest indication of the increasingly close relationship between the two countries, Iran, Russia and Iran announced on Thursday that they would meet next month to work out the details of a massive project to open up a new sea-land transport corridor that would that would be a cheaper and shorter alternative to shipping oil and other goods through the Suez Canal.

According to RT, the North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), the name for the new transit route, will connect India to Russia and Europe via a combination of sea routes and an overland passage through Iran, according to Iranian state-owned news outlet Press TV. The 7,200-kilometers long corridor will reduce the time and costs of shipping by up to 40%. Transport time between Mumbai and Moscow will fall to 20 days. The annual capacity of the transport artery is expected to reach 30 million tons.

Indian logistics companies presently need to route shipments through China, Europe or Iran to access Central Asian markets. Already, routing shipments through Iran is the least time-consuming option. But the INSTC will have the ancillary benefit of allowing Indian companies to forge a new trade route to Afghanistan without having to travel through Pakistan, as tensions over Kashmir are once again on the rise. The passage corridor through the Persian Gulf will mean billions of dollars in trade for Afghanistan, cutting its dependence on foreign logistics.

Russia to build world’s northernmost railway in Arctic https://t.co/wC7jxZ1jB5 pic.twitter.com/nFMpZP4qIO

— RT (@RT_com) October 30, 2018

Already, India has committed $500 million for developing the Iranian port of Chabahar, which will be a crucial transshipment point for transitioning cargo from sea to land. What’s more, the arrangement has the blessing of China, which could potentially incorporate the passage into its multi-trillion-dollar ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative to build new trade routes connecting China to Europe, Asia and Africa. 

Indian officials said they’re hoping to start building out the infrastructure required for the route to function as swiftly as possible.

“All issues may be resolved in order to operationalize the (INSTC) route as early as possible,” according to Indian Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu, as quoted by the media.

The alliance of these four countries should unnerve the US. As it stands, the rise in bilateral trade denominated in rubles, yuan and rupees, while modest so far, is set to grow, with plans to eventually undermine the dollar’s hegemonic grip on global trade settlement. And with US sanctions on Iran set to take effect on Nov. 4, the Iranian regime only stands to benefit by encouraging the blooming economic partnership between Russia and India, as Russia implements its plan to circumvent the dollar, and, by extension, Treasury Department sanctions.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2CWfBM1 Tyler Durden

Authored by Rob Shimshock via Campus Reform,

A Dartmouth professor argued on Tuesday that “if we don’t abolish capitalism, capitalism will abolish us.”

Dartmouth College lecturer Mark Bray made the remark in an op-ed for Truthout, titled “How Capitalism Stokes the Far Right and Climate Catastrophe.”

“We are on a deadline,” Bray says.

“Lesser-evilism among capitalist politicians may have some rationale when spending five minutes casting a ballot on Election Day, but we don’t have time for it to be a guiding strategical outlook. We need to organize movements to build popular power and shut down the industries that threaten our existence.“

“Fascism is ascendant,” the Ivy League professor continues.

“The world is on fire. This is no time to be patient. If we don’t abolish capitalism, capitalism will abolish us.”

Bray claims that the far right advocates for environmentally destructive policies, alleging that the faction prioritizes interests of certain groups over those of the entire planet, but takes his argument a step further by blaming capitalism.

“We must recognize that the climate crisis and the resurgence of the far right are two of the most acute symptoms of our failure to abolish capitalism,” the scholar asserts.

“A capitalist system that prioritizes profit and perpetual growth over all else is the mortal enemy of global aspirations for a sustainable economy that satisfies needs rather than stock portfolios.”

Bray’s faculty profile lists the Dartmouth lecturer as an associated visiting scholar of the school’s Gender Research Institute. It also describes him as “a historian of human rights, terrorism, and political radicalism in Modern Europe.” But Bray seems to have done more than just document issues of radicalism.

The professor donated half of the profits from his book “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” to Antifa.

He has also authored the introduction to an Antifa comic book and in a tweet displaying photos of what he suggested were Antifa flags made by kids at a summer camp, said “super rad!”

Campus Reform contacted Bray, asking him what his preferred alternative to capitalism would be among other questions, but the professor did not comment in time for press.

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