Tag: finance

Though no shocker as we predicted previously, China has refused to cut Iranian oil imports at the United States’ request in a severe blow to White House efforts to intensify pressure and economically isolate the Islamic Republic after the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. However, Beijing has reportedly agreed not to accelerate purchases. 

China, itself a target of ratcheting US economic pressure especially after Wednesday’s shock news that President Trump may impose a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, remains the world’s top crude importer and is Iran’s top buyer.

Bloomberg reported overnight, citing two officials familiar with the negotiations, that limited concessions have been made, however:

Beijing has, however, agreed not to ramp up purchases of Iranian crude, according to the officials, who asked not to be identified because discussions with China and other countries continue. That would ease concerns that China would work to undermine U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic by purchasing excess oil.

China has long been on record as opposing unilateral sanctions and further according to Bloomberg accounted for 35 percent of Iranian exports last month, based on ship tracking data. 

Meanwhile Iran’s foreign minister welcomed the news: “The role of China in the implementation of JCPOA, in achieving JCPOA, and now in sustaining JCPOA, will be pivotal,” Mohammad Javad Zarif said, according to Reuters.

The Trump White House currently has teams of negotiators around the world pressuring European and other capitals to cut off trade with Iran — largely unsuccessful to date — in an attempt to cut its oil exports to zero by November 4.

This has been accompanied by the threat of sanctions for those who don’t comply with US demands to show “significant” progress in reducing Iranian oil purchases. Bloomberg reports that a US team led by Francis Fannon, the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Energy Resources, recently visited China to discuss sanctions, confirmed by a State Department spokesman. 

Crucially, it is as yet unclear how severe a toll this will take on the global oil market, as Bloomberg discusses the variables and unknowns at play:

The oil market has been speculating about how much of Iran’s exports could be eroded by the U.S. sanctions, with analysts from BMI Research to Mizuho Securities predicting that China might boost its imports of cheap supplies from the state and offset cuts by other nations. Countries including South Korea and Japan are reducing purchases from OPEC’s third-largest producer before the deadline to avoid the risk of buyers losing access to the U.S. financial system.

…The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, has pledged to fill any supply gaps in the market after Trump’s complaints. That’s helped limit a rally in global benchmark Brent crude, which is trading near $73 a barrel after falling 6.5 percent last month. The London marker is still up about 40 percent from a year earlier.

Saudi Arabia, for geopolitical reasons, remains a close American oil partner in lobbying for global isolation of Iran at a moment when Iran’s military has threatened to block all regional exports from the Persian Gulf, initiating war games this week near the vital Straight of Hormuz, prompting the Pentagon to deploy additional US warships to the area. 

Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox Business Network on Thursday that there’s more pain ahead for Beijing while also attempting to calm fears of potential blowback on US consumers and businesses, assuring the public, “It’s not something that’s going to be cataclysmic”.

“We have to create a situation where it’s more painful for them to continue their bad practices than it is to reform,” Ross said of ratcheting up the pressure on China and in defense of the president’s escalatory rhetoric on tariffs. 

“The reason for the tariffs to begin with was to try and convince the Chinese to modify their behavior. Instead they have been retaliating. So the president now feels that it’s potentially time to put more pressure on, in order to modify their behavior,” he said.

Ross tried to calm fears further by saying Wednesday’s announcement of potentially raising planned tariff’s on $200 billion of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent would only amount to $50 billion — according to him a negligible fraction of the Chinese economy.

But the Chinese aren’t seeing it that way, as on Thursday Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi slammed talk of possible 25 percent tariffs: “Instead of achieving one’s own goal by doing this, we believe it will only hurt one’s own interests,” he told reporters at a press conference in Singapore. He continued, “Sixty per cent of Chinese exports to the US are actually made by foreign companies, including American firms in China. Is the US trying to put tariffs on its own companies?“

“For Chinese exports to the US, many of them are no longer produced in the US itself. Is the US administration trying to raise the living cost of its own consumers?” the Chinese FM said.

FM Wan Yi called for cooler heads to prevail: “While China is ready to talk to anyone ready to talk to us, including the US, this kind of dialogue has to take place on the basis of mutual respect and equality,” he concluded.

* * *

While as much as 2.3 million barrels a day of crude from the Persian Gulf state at risk per Trump’s sanctions, the White House has has now as predicted gotten the door slammed by China, while India or Turkey have already hinted they would defy Trump and keep importing Iranian oil. Together three three nations make up about 60 percent of the Persian Gulf state’s exports.

While next steps remain unclear, the potential outcome for the US isn’t: should China fully pivot away from US exports and replace them with Iranian product, the US trade deficit will resume rising, further adding to the pressure of what is Trump’s biggest economic hurdle: the double US deficits.

The flipside is that since less Iranian oil exports will go unused, it may provide a solace to the US consumer facing the highest gas prices in four years. However, if the ongoing pipeline bottleneck in the Permian is not resolved soon, said solace will prove to be short-lived.

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

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Yesterday I told you about the unstoppable trend towards more socialism in the US.

I think inflation is the primary factor driving this trend. Americans feel squeezed because the cost of rent, medical insurance, and tuition, as well as other basic living expenses, is rising much faster than their wages.

This creates very real problems for ordinary people. In response, more and more turn to Santa Claus politicians that promise supposed freebies, like a $15 minimum wage or universal basic income.

Why the Cost of Living Has Exploded

This is all a predictable consequence of the US abandoning sound money.

By every measure – including stagnating wages and rising costs – things have been going downhill for the American middle class since the early 1970s.

August 15, 1971, to be exact. This is the date President Nixon killed the last remnants of the gold standard.

Since then, the dollar has been a pure fiat currency. This allows the Fed to print as many dollars as it pleases. And—without the discipline imposed by some form of a gold standard—it does precisely that. The US money supply has exploded 2,106% higher since 1971.

The rejection of sound money is the primary reason inflation has eaten up wage growth since the early 1970s—and the primary reason the cost of living has exploded.

The next chart illustrates this dynamic. It measures US hourly wages priced in gold grams (the number of gold grams the average person’s hourly income could buy).

Measured in gold, wages in the US have fallen over 84% since 1971. That’s an astounding drop.

The next chart measures the federal minimum wage in terms of gold grams. Priced in gold, the minimum wage has fallen 87% since 1968.

Note that the federal minimum wage was $1.60 in 1968. It’s $7.25 today, or 353% higher in dollar terms.

But that $7.25 buys 87% less than $1.60 did back in 1968. That’s the story you won’t hear from the mainstream press.

This is why millennials and millions of others are gravitating toward socialism.

They feel the economic pain of inflation every day. They know it’s becoming harder and harder to maintain a middle-class lifestyle. They just don’t understand why. So, they succumb to the siren’s call of freebies.

Perverse as it is, the policies demanded by people suffering from inflation create even more inflation.

Inflation has a way of perpetuating itself. The more inflation reduces living standards, the more people push for programs that create even more inflation. This includes things like universal basic income and a higher minimum wage… which in turn creates a cycle of inflation.

It’s only a matter of time before “fight for $15,” the rallying cry for a $15 minimum wage, becomes “fight for $20.” Then it’s “fight for $50,” “fight for $100,” and so forth.

What people should really fight for is a return to sound money. It’s the only way to end this insidious cycle. But that’s not going to happen.

Inflation follows a clear pattern of corruption:

1. In a fiat currency system, the government will invariably print an ever-increasing amount of currency.

2. This makes prices and the cost of living rise faster than wages.

3. The average person feels the pain but doesn’t understand what’s happening.

4. More people support politicians who promise freebies.

5. In order to pay for the “freebies,” the government prints more money.

6. This creates even more inflation, and the cycle repeats.

Most of America Lives Off the Government

At this point, we have to ask ourselves whether the political situation in the US will improve. Unfortunately, the data points to a troubling, but inevitable, answer… “no.”

The reason is simple: a growing majority of US voters are addicted to the heroin of government welfare.

An estimated 47% or so of Americans already receive some form of government benefit. But I don’t think that accurately reflects the situation. At least, not when you consider all the government employees, along with those in the nominally private sector who feed off the warfare state. This includes defense and other government contractors who win huge, no-bid contracts.

People involved in the military-industrial complex live off government slops as much or more than those who collect food stamps and other traditional forms of welfare. Yet they aren’t counted in the statistics. Any honest account of who depends on the government needs to include them.

When you count everyone who lives off of political dollars, we’re already well north of 50% of the US population.

In other words, the US has already crossed the Rubicon. There’s no going back.

The growing majority of people who depend on the government guarantee that socialist policies will continue and likely accelerate. It’s why Bernie Sanders and his ilk are growing in popularity.

I think this trend is unstoppable. There’s no way a meaningful number of these people would ever vote to stop their government benefits. No one voluntarily breaks his own rice bowl.

The notion that a significant number of people living off of government largesse will come around to a libertarian way of thinking is a pipe dream.

Even the Libertarian Party has become a crude parody of a real libertarian, free market, voluntaryist philosophy.

There is simply no hope for positive change from the political system. That means one thing is certain: an ever-increasing amount of money printing to pay for all these government programs.

How to Protect Your Wealth

Unfortunately, most people have no idea how bad things can get when socialist government policies spin completely out of control, let alone how to prepare.

Owning some physical gold is step one. This is something everyone should do.

Gold is the ultimate form of wealth insurance. It’s preserved wealth through every kind of crisis imaginable. It will preserve wealth during the next crisis, too.

The price of gold tends to be inversely related to the value of the dollar.

I expect gold to soar in the years ahead as the political inflation cycle plays out.

In addition to physical gold, you’ll also want leveraged upside to grow your wealth. For that, I suggest looking to companies that produce precious metals.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KqrQR3 Tyler Durden

We can only imagine the twenty-four hour media blitz that would be unleashed if this had happened with the Trump campaign, or on anyone’s staff even remotely associated  with President Trump past or present.

But when the story first broke in the middle of this week of a mole working on behalf of the Russian Chinese government on a powerful Democrat Senate Intelligence Committee member’s staff, it passed in the mainstream media with a yawn, and though slowly gaining visibility still hasn’t been covered by some of the large cable networks or newspapers. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was “mortified” upon learning that a Chinese spy had worked in her office for nearly 20 years.

According to new details initially unveiled in a Politico report on Russian and Chinese spies in Silicon Valley, a staffer who was fired five years ago had managed to stay on her team for nearly two decades likely out of motivation to collect information related to her long tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for which she maintains top-secret security clearance. 

Sen. Feinstein reportedly made the staffer retire upon being alerted by the FBI. He worked as her personal driver and clerk for her Bay Area office, as CBS San Francisco relates:

On Wednesday, the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered additional details in a column written by reporters Phil Matier and Andy Ross. The column revealed that the Chinese spy was Feinstein’s driver who also served as a gofer in her Bay Area office and was a liaison to the Asian-American community.

He even attended Chinese consulate functions for the senator.

Feinstein — who was Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time — was reportedly mortified when the FBI told her she’d be infiltrated. Investigators reportedly concluded the driver hadn’t leaked anything of substance and Feinstein forced him to retire.

Perhaps the most stunning part of the story is that he remained in her office for nearly two decades, reportedly having contact with China’s Ministry of State Security for an unknown number of years during that lengthy period. 

Though it’s unclear when his contact with the Chinese state began, follow-up reports by local San Francisco sources claim he may have been an unwitting asset.

The San Francisco Chronicle in a follow-up investigation reports:

According to our source, the intrigue started years earlier when the staffer took a trip to Asia to visit relatives and was befriended by someone who continued to stay in touch with him on subsequent visits.

That someone was connected with the People’s Republic of China’s Ministry of State Security.

“He didn’t even know what was happening — that he was being recruited,” says our source. “He just thought it was some friend.”

Neither the FBI nor Chinese embassy has issued official comment in response to the bombshell story; however, various reports cite investigators close to the matter who say the mole was able to obtain little or nothing of substance. 

It’s believed that the advantage of Chinese intelligence placing a driver with the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee is that he may have picked up on tidbits of sensitive conversations at moments the senator thought she could comfortably speak to colleagues and staff. 

One former counter-espionage FBI agent in the Bay Area, Jeff Harp, told CBS San Francisco he believes someone like Sen. Feinstein would constitute a key, high value target for foreign intelligence and eavesdropping:

Harp pointed out politicians with access to classified information are generally trained on what not to say and when not to say it. But he also noted when you have a driver behind the wheel day in and day out for 20 years, there are more opportunities to slip up.

“Think about Diane Feinstein and what she had access to,” Harp explained. “One, she had access to the Chinese community here in San Francisco; great amount of political influence. Two, correct me if I’m wrong, Dianne Feinstein still has very close ties to the intelligence committees there in Washington, D.C.”

And of Silicon Valley being a hotbed of Chinese espionage, Harp continued, “They also have an interest in the economy here. How to get political influence here. What’s being developed in Silicon Valley that has dual-use technology. All of that is tied to the Bay Area.”

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

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

Wildfires have been particularly bad the past few years. It’s part of the reason my family and I moved out of California. (Only part – the laws there are crazy!)

And while this year seems worse than ever, the first 6 months are it’s actually not quite as bad as last year, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

So far this year, we’ve seen 37591 fires and 4,810,195 acres have burned. By this time last year, there had been 39,227 fires and 5,639,919 acres had been devastated. Of course, this is of little comfort to those dealing with this year’s fires. And right now, wildfires are burning across the nation, from Alaska, all the way to Florida. Here’s the current map from the NOAA that shows where the fires are.

So, basically, everywhere west of Chicago with a couple in the east.

What’s causing all these fires?

Of course, the headlines are all breathlessly claiming that the fires are due to climate change because that’s the current agenda in the straw-seizing, politically correct world.

But the fact is, they’re caused by people. 90% of the fires that are burning and have burned in the United States have been caused by the carelessness or deliberate intent of human beings. The US Department of the Interior says:

Wildfires can be caused by nature – mostly due to lightning strikes – but the vast majority are caused by humans. Research estimates that 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by people. Some human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, and intentional acts of arson. It can also be caused unintentionally by heat and sparks from vehicles and equipment. Public education and personal responsibility can greatly reduce the number of wildfires each year. (source)

Does anyone else remember the Smokey Bear ads? “Only YOU can prevent forest fires?” Something tells me they need to bring Smokey back to teach people how to enjoy nature more responsibly. But human error is only part of the issue.

The fires are more intense now because of the increased fuel loads. Dry grass, unchecked forest growth, and brush all add to the intensity and speed at which a fire burns.

There are three conditions that need to be present in order for a wildfire to burn, which firefighters refer to as the fire triangle: fuel, oxygen, and a heat source. Fuel is any flammable material surrounding a fire, including trees, grasses, brush, even homes. The greater an area’s fuel load, the more intense the fire. Air supplies the oxygen a fire needs to burn. Heat sources help spark the wildfire and bring fuel to temperatures hot enough to ignite. Lightning, burning campfires or cigarettes, hot winds, and even the sun can all provide sufficient heat to spark a wildfire…

…Dry weather and drought convert green vegetation into bone-dry, flammable fuel; strong winds spread fire quickly over land; and warm temperatures encourage combustion. (source)

Environmental policies that were designed in an effort to protect forests are actually responsible for destroying them because it’s increasing the fuel load for wildfires. A lack of forest management and yes, logging, has created forests so dense that it only takes a spark for them to go up in flames, and all of the fuel results in an intense, fast-moving blaze.

Obviously, drought conditions make everything worse, and California has been on-and-off in a drought forever – or at least the past hundred years.

Wildfires have always happened.

Wildfires have long been nature’s method of forest management. The US Department of the Interior explains:

Fire has always been a natural process that is essential to healthy ecological systems. In the early 1900s, land management agencies sought to suppress all fires in an effort to preserve the timber supply. Over the decades, fire exclusion led to more living and dead vegetation on the landscape, increasing the fuel and as a result, the risk of large wildfires in our forests, rangelands, and near communities. (source)

A report from the Clemson University newspaper said:

“Fire has always been a natural occurrence in our ecosystem that has many benefits,” said Derrick Phinney, a Clemson Cooperative Extension natural resources division leader based in Dorchester. “As far back as the American Indians, fire was a main staple of forest management. Whether intentionally set or started by lightning strikes, fire regenerates forests, renews the soil and basically resets the clock. But in more recent times, the number of prescribed burns has greatly decreased because of numerous reasons, such as air-quality issues caused by smoke. When highways, schools and hospitals are built near or even within forests, this limits fire usage.”

Because of these limitations, higher-than-normal buildups of undesirable fuel loads, such as invasive undergrowth, brush and ground litter, create conditions that, when combined with drought, low humidity and wind, can result in dire consequences. A fire that would normally flow through a forest doing relatively little harm to the larger trees instead burns so hot that it annihilates everything in its path.

“They burn too hot, they burn too fast, they burn uncontrollably, especially in hilly and mountainous areas,” said Phinney, who has been involved in land management and environmental regulations for close to 20 years. “They say that fire runs up a hill and walks down a hill. Fire basically runs up hills because it super-heats the vegetation above where it’s burning. This can cause incredible damage.” (source)

This leads us to another factor.

Humans live where the fires are.

As mentioned previously, poor forest management has led to additional fuel. Humans have carelessly caused fire after fire. And a third of our growing population lives in areas that are much more prone to burn.

As our population grows, more and more people – one-third of homes, specifically –  live in or near the forests and natural areas, something called Wildland-Urban Interface. According to a report by the USDA, if you are in that interface, sooner or later, you’re going to be at risk of a wildfire. “Homes located anywhere in the WUI will eventually be exposed to wildfire, regardless of vegetation type or potential for large fires.”

This isn’t to say that humans all need to live in the city.

“People move into areas where fires have always been. But they don’t prepare for them and, in many cases, aren’t even aware of how dangerous they can be,” said Carolyn Dawson, an Extension forestry agent based in the Upstate. “Then they’re shocked when a wildfire comes through and destroys their homes. We need to teach homeowners how to adapt to living with wildfire and encourage neighbors to work together and take action now to prevent losses in the future. There are things residents can do, such as reducing wildland fuels and structure ignitability, to protect their homes during a wildfire. Homes that don’t ignite don’t burn.” (source)

It’s very important to know if you live in an area with a high potential for wildfire and if so, to prepare for the possibility.

What can you do to protect your home?

There are numerous things you can do to protect your home from a wildfire if you live in an area prone to them. The US Forest Service is bursting with information about the topic with their FireWise program. Here are some of their suggestions to prepare your home.

Immediate zone

The home and the area 0-5’ from the furthest attached exterior point of the home; defined as a non-combustible area.  Science tells us this is the most important zone to take immediate action on as it is the most vulnerable to embers. START WITH THE HOUSE ITSELF then move into the landscaping section of the Immediate Zone.

• Clean roofs and gutters of dead leaves, debris and pine needles that could catch embers.
• Replace or repair any loose or missing shingles or roof tiles to prevent ember penetration.
• Reduce embers that could pass through vents in the eaves by installing 1/8 inch metal mesh screening.
• Clean debris from exterior attic vents and install 1/8 inch metal mesh screening to reduce embers.
• Repair or replace damaged or loose window screens and any broken windows Screen or box-in areas below patios and decks with wire mesh to prevent debris and combustible materials from accumulating.
• Move any flammable material away from wall exteriors – mulch, flammable plants, leaves and needles, firewood piles – anything that can burn. Remove anything stored underneath decks or porches.

Intermediate zone

5-30’ from the furthest exterior point of the home. Landscaping/hardscaping- employing careful landscaping or creating breaks that can help influence and decrease fire behavior

• Clear vegetation from under large stationary propane tanks.
• Create fuel breaks with driveways, walkways/paths, patios, and decks.
• Keep lawns and native grasses mowed to a height of four inches.
• Remove ladder fuels (vegetation under trees) so a surface fire cannot reach the crowns.  Prune trees up to six to ten feet from the ground; for shorter trees do not exceed 1/3 of the overall tree height.
• Space trees to have a minimum of eighteen feet between crowns with the distance increasing with the percentage of slope.
• Tree placement should be planned to ensure the mature canopy is no closer than ten feet to the edge of the structure.
• Tree and shrubs in this zone should be limited to small clusters of a few each to break up the continuity of the vegetation across the landscape.

Extended zone

30-100 feet, out to 200 feet. Landscaping – the goal here is not to eliminate fire but to interrupt fire’s path and keep flames smaller and on the ground.

• Dispose of heavy accumulations of ground litter/debris.
• Remove dead plant and tree material.
• Remove small conifers growing between mature trees.
• Remove vegetation adjacent to storage sheds or other outbuildings within this area.
• Trees 30 to 60 feet from the home should have at least 12 feet between canopy tops.*
• Trees 60 to 100 feet from the home should have at least 6 feet between the canopy tops.*

Another thing you can do is proof your roof with a non-flammable material, like asphalt shingles, metal, slate, or tile. That can be incredibly expensive, so another option, although less effective, is treating your existing roof with fire retardant, or install a rooftop sprinkler system

These steps can be the difference between your home burning during a wildfire or being one of the homes left standing.

You need to be ready to evacuate.

Despite the best preparations, there are some cases in which you must evacuate. Wildfires can spread rapidly, especially if they ignite things like propane tanks. In 2015, the small town of Middleburg, California was literally burned off the map when this occurred.

The videos in this article show the horror of evacuating through a wildfire. We lived on the edge of a wildfire more than once in California, but I’ll never forget the first one. Here’s that story if you want to know what it’s like. My former home of El Dorado County, California is currently under threat again, and all my dear friends and former neighbors are in my thoughts.

For evacuation checklists and vehicle emergency kit checklists, you can grab my new PDF, The Prepper’s Book of Lists for $9.49. It contains more than 40 lists to help you get prepped and ready for anything.

You should have a kit in your vehicle at all times for a rapid escape:

• Swimming goggles: This will protect your eyes and help keep you from being blinded by smoke

• Respirator masks: This doesn’t mean you will be able to breathe if the fire sucks all the oxygen from your environment, but it will help to filter out some of the smoke so you aren’t disabled by a coughing fit. If you don’t have tons of money to spend, even an N95 mask will help. Worst case scenario, wrap a bandana or t-shirt around your nose and mouth.

• Fire extinguisher: In a worst case scenario if your vehicle catches on fire, you may be able to put it out if you attack while the blaze is small.

• Welding gloves: Remember the guy who burned his hands opening a gate? Welding gloves will offer some protection from hot surfaces.

• Fill ‘er up: Keep your vehicle full of fuel at all times. Can you imagine running out of gas while fleeing for your life?

Remember, if you live near a forest, you are at risk of a forest fire. It can happen any place that there’s fuel. Be prepared and be safe.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2n8VjG4 Tyler Durden

The number of employees working in the media industry plunged 23.6 percent from 2008 to 2017, according to a new analysis.

According to a Pew Research analysis published Monday, in 2017, there were about 88,000 newsroom employees – reporters, editors, photographers, and videographers – working across five industries that generate news: broadcast news, cable, newspapers, radio, and other information services. That number is down from 114,000 employees in 2008, which represents a loss of about 27,000 jobs (-23.6 percent).

Glancing through the report, what caught our attention — is the decline in newspaper employees.

Pew mentioned the number of employees at newspapers across the US collapsed -45 percent over the last ten years. Citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics survey data, the nonpartisan American fact tank reports roughly 71,000 workers were employed at newspapers in 2008, while the number stands at only 39,000 in 2017.

“Of the five industries studied, notable job growth occurred only in the digital-native news sector,” reported Pew.

“Since 2008, the number of digital-native newsroom employees increased by 79%, from about 7,400 workers to about 13,000 in 2017. This increase of about 6,000 total jobs, however, fell far short of offsetting the loss of about 32,000 newspaper newsroom jobs during the same period,” the fact tank added.

The decline in newspaper employment also means the industry is rapidly shrinking.  In 2008, newspaper newsroom employees were about 62 percent of all news workers. By 2017, they stand at only 45 percent.

In the last decade, there has been a noticeable expansion in television broadcasting workers of all newsroom employees, from 25 percent in 2008 to 33 percent in 2017. Employees in digital-native news increased from 6 percent of all newsroom employees to about 15 percent in 2017.

The analysis was published one week after another Pew Research study revealed 36 percent of the largest newspapers across the US — as well as 23 percent of the highest-traffic digital-native news outlets — experienced some form of layoffs between January 2017 and April 2018.

The study found newspapers with circulations of at least 250,000, had a higher probability of experiencing layoffs than smaller-circulation papers between January 2017 and April 2018. Pew noted that 56 percent of major US newspapers had layoffs. By comparison, 36 percent of newspapers between 100,000 and 249,999 had layoffs, and 30 percent of papers with circulations between 50,000 and 99,999 had to cut back their workforce.

As information technology revolutionizes the way through which people receive news, the direct result of such a radical shift is the collapse of the American newspaper industry. Earlier this month, New York Daily News cut half its editorial staff in another round of massive layoffs that now only has 40 employees remaining. There could be a lot more pain coming for American newspapers, as the print apocalypse could rear its ugly head in the next recession.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KoRLJ8 Tyler Durden

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

President Donald Trump is threatening to take away the security clearances of a number of former senior intelligence and security officers who have been extremely critical of him. Most Americans were unaware that any ex-officials continued to hold clearances after they retired and the controversy has inevitably raised the question why that should be so. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer.

A security clearance is granted to a person but it is also linked to “need to know” in terms of what kind of information should or could be accessed, which means that when you are no longer working as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency you don’t necessarily need to know anything about China’s spying on the United States. Or do you? If you transition into a directorship or staff position of a major intelligence or security contractor, which many retirees do, you might need to retain the qualification for your job, which makes the clearance an essential component in the notorious revolving door whereby government officials transit to the private sector and then directly lobby their former colleagues to keep the flow of cash coming.

At top levels among the beltway bandit companies, where little work is actually done, some make the case that you have to remain “well informed” to function properly. The fact is that many top-level bureaucrats do retain their clearances for those nebulous reasons and also sometimes as a courtesy. Some have even received regular briefings from the CIA and the office of the Director of National intelligence even though they hold no government positions. A few very senior ex-officials have also been recalled by congress or the White House to provide testimony on particular areas of expertise or on past operations, which can legitimately require a clearance, though it such cases one can be granted on a temporary basis to cover a specific issue.

The problem arises when former officials use their clearances as bona fides to enhance their marketability for non-clearance jobs in the media or corporate world, particularly when those individuals are criticizing current government policies and behaving in a partisan fashion regarding specific candidates for office. Donald Trump was especially assailed by former officials John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden and Michael Morell before the 2016 election, all of whom continue to attack him currently, most particularly for the recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. During the 2016 campaign, Morell, who openly supported Hillary Clinton and is the designated intelligence on-air contributor for CBS news, deliberately linked the fact that he was ex-CIA Acting Director to his assertion that Trump was somehow an “unwitting agent of the Russian Federation” to establish his credibility. That type of activity should be considered abusive and an exploitation of one’s former office.

Morell left CIA in June 2013 and by November was a senior counselor with Beacon Global Strategies. According to the firm’s website, Beacon Global Strategies is a government and private sector consulting group that specializes in matters of international policy, foreign affairs, national defense, cyber, intelligence, and homeland security. Morell may know little about those issues as they have evolved in the past five years, but citing his clearance gives him credibility for knowledge that he might not really possess and also gives him direct access to former colleagues that he can lobby to obtain government contracts.

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who famously voted for the Communist Party candidate for US president in 1976, has also profited greatly from his government service, becoming rich from his board memberships. He sits on the board of directors of SecureAuth + CORE Security and also on the board of The Analysis Corporation. More important in terms of his public profile, he is the “Intelligence Consultant” for NBC News and MSNBC and appears regularly.

Last week Senator Rand Paul met with President Trump and recommended that Brennan’s security clearance be revoked. He argued that Brennan, Trump’s most aggressive critic, has been using his credentials to provide credibility when he calls meeting with Russia’s president “treasonous” and describes the president as “wholly in the pocket of Putin.” Clearance holders also more generally use their privileged access to “secret information” to leverage speaking and television network pundit fees. In other words, Brennan and the others are using their security clearances to enhance their incomes, monetizing their access to classified information to enhance their value.

It is by no means clear whether Trump will revoke the clearances of Clapper, Brennan, Morell and Hayden. As he is the legal source of all government clearances he has the power to do so. An equitable solution on the clearance issue more generally speaking would be to cancel all security clearances on the day when one leaves government service unless there is a direct and immediate transition to a private sector position that absolutely requires such a qualification. That would be fair to lower level employees seeking a second source of income and it would also eliminate many of those who are merely cashing in on their presumed access. As it is a rational solution it is very unlikely that it will be entertained by either the White House or by Congress.

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

Officials in Portland, Oregon are bracing for violence during tomorrow’s conservative “Patriot Prayer” rally, a little over one month after “Rose City” Antifa squared off with conservatives in a violent altercation that took place in the middle of Second Avenue.

The result was a viral video of a “one-punch” knockout of a masked leftist by Proud Boy Ethan Nordeen. 

In response to the knockout, Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes told Big League Politics: “F#&k around and find out,” stating that Antifa “found out.” 

Ahead of Saturday’s conservative rally, Antifa is back at it again – planning a “direct confrontation” with participants, according to a call to action on the leftist website “It’s Going Down.“

“Rose City Antifa has continued their great work of doxxing the Portland area Proud Boys involved in this violence, and is also calling for militant antifascist resistance against Patriot Prayer,” reads the posting.

A spokesperson for Rose City Antifa told It’s Going Down said that the group plans to “show that the community will not allow violent nationalist opportunists to threaten our city and target our people. We will overwhelm them both by force of numbers and commitment to defending our community. Whatever it takes.“

Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson noted on Facebook that the rally would be held in an area which allows members to carry handguns. 

The report comes days after Gibson said in a Facebook post last week that the “Freedom March” would be held at a location that could allow attendees to carry handguns. Portland prohibits weapons in parks, but guns carried by those with a valid Oregon concealed handgun license are allowed, according to The Oregonian. –The Hill

“Better bring our own guns too”

Journalist Tim Pool noted a Reddit discussion last week in the “Anarchism” subreddit in which Antifa members discuss arming themselves ahead of the event. 

“Only thing I’m worried about is some nut with a gun and a bunch of bullets,” says one user, to which another replied “Better bring our own guns too just to be safe.”

August 4th in Portland is already sounding like it is going to get really bad.

Activists call for bringing guns in preparation for escalation. pic.twitter.com/f0IZO387Bi

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) July 28, 2018

No wonder authorities are concerned…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2n5S16u Tyler Durden

Authored by Nomi Prins via The Daily Reckoning,

Historically, presidents have refrained from publicly commenting on the Federal Reserve’s policy. This allows the Fed to maintain its veneer of independence.

However, it is clear that this White House is very different. President Trump is not one to keep his opinions quiet. Trump has publicly expressed frustration with the Fed, believing its rate hikes could negate the impact of the tax cuts impact growth.

During a recent interview with CNBC Squawk Box host, Joe Kernen, Trump said, “I’m not thrilled” about the rate hikes. Why not? The president continued:

Because we go up and every time you go up they want to raise rates again. I don’t really — I am not happy about it… I don’t like all of this work that we’re putting into the economy and then I see rates going up.

As further indication of how different Trump is from previous presidents, he added these remarks about commenting on Fed policy:

Now I’m just saying the same thing that I would have said as a private citizen. So somebody would say, ‘Oh, maybe you shouldn’t say that as president.’ I couldn’t care less what they say, because my views haven’t changed.

Stocks, markets and the dollar fell on his remarks. Sticking with tradition, the Fed did not comment on them. But here’s what Powell has on his mind…

As geopolitical tensions rise, trade wars mount, currency wars spawn and volatility continues to build, it’s clear the economy faces increasing pressure that could spiral into recession or worse.

Powell met with senior officials at the Fed recently to consider monetary policy in the wake of Trump’s comments (and though he didn’t say it, the markets).

After the interview aired, the White House issued a statement in which it “emphasized that Trump did not mean to influence the Fed’s decision-making process.”

But that’s just typical spin. While Powell wants to portray his independence, the fact remains he was still appointed by Trump. That’s political influence in the making.

President Trump’s indirect pressuring of the Federal Reserve not to raise rates is not unprecedented. He took a page out of another Republican president’s playbook – Richard Nixon. When the Fed began raising interest rates during Nixon’s term, he also raised objections, although not in public like the current president.

Back then, the U.S. had been in the throes of a recession in the beginning of the 1970s. The Fed had cut rates by half to stimulate the economy. There was no quantitative easing (QE) program during that period. That’s because it wasn’t a banking crisis preceding that recession, so the level of Fed support wasn’t anywhere near as expansive as it has been this past decade.

Fed Chairman Arthur Burns believed that “awful problems” could occur if the Fed didn’t raise rates in tandem with the growing economy. On a somewhat lesser scale, that’s the position of Jerome Powell today.

He wants to head off what he perceives as inflationary pressures before they jeopardize the current recovery. He doesn’t want to play catch-up and have to drastically reverse course down the road.

But Nixon didn’t want to risk cooling it off before his 1972 election. As White House audio tapes recorded, Nixon told Burns on March 19, 1971, “We’ve really got to think of goosing it… late summer and fall of this year and next year.”

Subsequent conversations led to a reversal of rate hikes during the fall of 1971. But importantly, what President Trump should know is that Nixon’s intervention into the Fed’s policies didn’t end well.

Burns’ reversal inevitably led to one of the highest inflationary periods in U.S. history. And of course the term “stagflation” entered the language during the ‘70s, with their high inflation and limited growth. I remember the gas lines very well.

But the fact is, we live in different times now.

America was just beginning to move off the gold standard in those days, so the spending restraints it engendered still exerted force. And even with the Vietnam War and the recently initiated Great Society to pay for, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was only about 35% in 1971. It’s now about 105%. The last vestiges of the gold standard are long gone.

Most importantly, it was a time before central banks had so much influence over markets. Central banks like the Fed were fixated on macroeconomic stability, not the performance of the stock market.

We live in a completely new monetary and fiscal world today, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. The Fed’s balance book went from about $800 billion pre-crisis to a gargantuan $4.5 trillion. That type of move was completely unprecedented.

Now the Fed is raising interest rates and reducing its balance sheet in order to return to “normal.”

So far, the Fed has raised rates seven times since December 2015. Under Jerome Powell, it has raised rates twice.

Now, the Fed forecasts another two rate hikes by the end of the year, once in September and then December. While it’s likely the second one is much lower than the first, the fact is that both are in play.

Markets are currently wondering if there will be a “Powell put.” During Alan Greenspan’s reign at the Federal Reserve, a phenomenon dubbed the “Greenspan put” prevailed.

Wall Street’s expectation was that if the stock market wobbled, the Fed would save the day by cutting rates (creating money and the need for speculators to then get returns from the stock rather than the bond market).

The Fed has largely played by a similar “put” playbook for the past decade, with low rates and a $4.5 trillion book of assets courtesy of QE. The mainstream media is slow to recognize this. Only now are they beginning to wonder whether the Fed will do what’s needed to lift the markets when it becomes necessary.

But, as a recent Bloomberg suggests, Powell is facing the same pressure to have his own put, “except this time it would be tied to the bond market.” Now, policy makers are increasingly concerned about the possibility of an inverted yield curve — where short-term rates are higher than long-term ones.

If that happens, policy makers and Wall Street would want the Fed to cut rates. An inverted yield curve is probably the most reliable recession indicator out there, with a proven record going back to the 1950s.

The other dynamic at hand is that winning trade wars requires a weaker dollar and a slower pace of rate hikes. That’s exactly what Powell alluded to in recent testimony before Congress.

If Powell adheres to Trump’s wishes, it’ll be because the economy isn’t growing as fast as predicted and because banks remain addicted to cheap central bank credit, which I refer to as dark money. That means more central bank credit to support markets when they hit a rough patch.

The market will continue to enjoy an upside from dark money policy that continues the status quo. Dark money could remain on course until the end of year, which would lift non-trade war associated stocks and weaken the dollar.

The bubble will eventually burst, but I don’t foresee that happening just yet. The bottom line is, dark money is the key to understanding today’s rigged and artificial markets.

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

Tesla shares rocketed higher on August 2, by almost $50, the day after the company reported its second-quarter results. Despite the stock rising more than 15% immediately after the report, WSJ analytics  showed that short sellers are standing their ground in the name despite an estimated $1.7 billion paper loss resulting from the violent move higher.

The Journal noted that there was about $10.5 billion in short interest heading into Wednesday afternoon’s reported earnings. And as the above chart shows, Tesla has remained the most heavily shorted stock in the U.S. in the days after its report. It was also noted that dating back to 2016, shorts in the name are down over $6 billion, making it third only to Nvidia and Amazon as the most painful short over that time period. 

The WSJ quotes one of Tesla’s most vocal and well known short sellers, Mark Speigel, who, despite noting that Tesla has pulled down his hedge fund’s performance, stated that he plans to keep this short on because nothing new in the second quarter report disproved his thesis. 

“It’s pounded my fund’s performance over the last 18 months…but I don’t let the stock price change how I feel about the company,” said Mark Spiegel, who says his hedge fund, Stanphyl Capital, has been shorting Tesla for years and would continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Spiegel said he first began shorting Tesla around 2013, when its share price was trading in the high $90s. Once it got to around $200, “I thought, this is beyond ridiculous, and that’s when I got a lot shorter,” he said.

Wednesday’s earnings report did little to impress Mr. Spiegel, who said he is troubled by competition from luxury auto makers that plan to roll out their own electric vehicles and issues with product delays, along with the pace at which the company has plowed through its cash. “I saw nothing in [Wednesday’s] report that I didn’t expect or that changes my opinion about the company,” Mr. Spiegel said.

Not surprisingly, Tesla bulls used the earnings report in which Musk “apologized” to add to their positions. Gerber Kawasaki’s Ross Gerber took to Twitter on Friday, even after the stock ran up nearly $50 on Thursday, to try and “put the screws on the shorts” by buying more stock.

Time to put the screws on the shorts. Putting our cash to work. Enjoy. $tsla #tesla

— Ross Gerber (@GerberKawasaki) August 3, 2018

Even so, the head of predictive analytics at S3 Partners told the Journal that he expects shorts to continue to hold their ground moving forward:

While it is possible short sellers with narrower time horizons are waiting for Tesla’s stock to pare recent gains before closing out their positions, longer-term sellers have accumulated losses of billions of dollars in the past—and in response, not just held onto their positions but also expanded them, Mr. Dusaniwsky said.

“The ones who’ve lost billions of dollars, they’re going to take it on the chin,” Mr. Dusaniwsky said, adding that Tesla has been one of the most heavily shorted stocks in the U.S. for years. “No matter what is going on with the price and with earnings and car production, the major long-term short sellers are holding onto their short positions.”

Other analysts tried to provide a more balanced look at what the company did well in Q2, the fact that Elon Musk behaved himself and the company did not disclose a Wells Notice – with what the company did poorly – basically everything having to do with managing the company’s financials and balance sheet.

The Wall Street Journal article noted that the company’s precarious financial situation remains the biggest reason that many short sellers, like David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital, have not given up their position on the company.

Hedge fund Greenlight Capital Inc.’s short position in Tesla, whose shares jumped 29% last quarter, was its second-biggest loser throughout that period, according to a letter the firm’s president, David Einhorn, distributed to investors this week. Still, in his letter, Mr. Einhorn maintained that 2019 would likely be “a very challenging year” for Tesla, adding that he doubted “the entry-level Model 3 will be produced profitably anytime soon, if ever.”

Prior to earnings, we wrote that Tesla short sellers likely stood to gain or lose about $850M as a result of the report. 

Based on the price of weekly Tesla options contracts that were set to expire the following Friday, traders in the options market expected the shares to swing by about 8% after the company reported results.

In the end, shares popped 15% on the report, doubling the max pain for shorts.

Regardless, it looks as though the next two quarters are going to be extremely interesting for Tesla, which has stuck with its controversial forecast that it will be GAAP profitable in the second half of the year. Short sellers have pointed out that the company’s cash minus customer deposits has dropped precipitously to just $1.2B and that payables rose from $2.6B to $3.0B over just one quarter, indicating that the company may be trying to free up cash by not paying its bills; a strategy that can’t last forever and will likely keep Tesla shorts hanging on. Meanwhile, even the most neutral of observers are confident that Tesla will need to raise billions in new cash to fund its staggering backlog of R&D, projects, ideas, new facilities and just to keep the cash burning business running.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2LWw1sO Tyler Durden

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Have scientists finally solved the mystery of the Bermuda triangle? 

The infamous body of water in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean stretches 270,271 square miles between Florida, Bermuda, and Puerto-Rico.

The Bermuda Triangle has been the source of many strange occurrences and mysteries involving both aircraft and boats. It is also known as the Devil’s Triangle and the area features multiple shipping lanes and has claimed over 1,000 lives in the last 100 years. But scientists think they have finally figured out why this continues to happen.

According to Fox News, experts at the University of Southampton believe the mystery can be explained by a natural phenomenon known as “rogue waves.”

 Appearing on aChannel 5 documentary “The Bermuda Triangle Enigma,” the scientists used indoor simulators to re-create the monster water surges. These waves, some of which measure 100 feet high, only last for a few minutes. They were first observed by satellites in 1997 off the coast of South Africa and are often seen as the source of so many lost ships.

The research team built a model of the USS Cyclops, a huge vessel which went missing in the triangle in 1918 claiming 300 lives and used it in their indoors simulator. Because of its sheer size and flat base, it did not take long before the model is overcome with water during the simulation, according to Fox News. 

Dr. Simon Boxall, an ocean and earth scientist, claims that the Bermuda Triangle area in the Atlantic can see three massive storms coming together from different directions, making the perfect conditions for a rogue wave. Such a massive surge in water could snap a boat, such as the USS Cyclops, into two pieces, said Boxall.

  “There are storms to the south and north, which come together.  And if there are additional ones from Florida, it can be a potentially deadly formation of rogue waves,” Boxall added.

“They [the rogue waves] are steep, they are high – we’ve measured waves in excess of 30 meters (98 feet),” said Boxall.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2n8ExqL Tyler Durden