Tag: finance

Submitted by Nauman Sadiq,

Confirming the deaths of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State’s spokesman Abu Hassan al-Muhajir, who was killed in a US airstrike in northwest Syria a day after the killing of al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s al-Furqan media has announced Abu Ibrahim Hashemi al-Quraishi as the new caliph of the terrorist organization.

Al-Quraishi is such an obscure jihadist that even national security analysts tracking the details of militant movements in the Middle East don’t have an inkling about his origins or biography. Even his name appears to be an assumed alias rather than a real name. Abu Ibrahim basically means “father of Ibrahim” in Arabic whereas Banu Hashem was Prophet Mohammad’s family and Quraishi means the tribe of Quraish. Both are common surnames in the Islamic World.

In any case, identifying individual militant leaders by name is irrelevant because as in the case of the Taliban and several other jihadist groups, the decisions are collectively taken by the Shura Council of the Islamic State. Excluding al-Baghdadi and a handful of his hardline Islamist aides, the rest of Islamic State’s top leadership is comprised of Saddam-era military and intelligence officials. According to a Washington Post report [1], hundreds of ex-Baathists constitute the top- and mid-tier command structure of the Islamic State who plan all the operations and direct its military strategy.

The title caliph of the Islamic State is simply a figurehead, which is obvious from the fact that al-Baghdadi remained in hiding for several years before being killed in a Special Ops raid on October 26, and the terrorist group kept functioning autonomously without any guidance or directives from its purported chief.

Here, let me try to dispel a myth peddled by the corporate media and foreign policy think tanks that the Islamic State originated from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Many biased political commentators of the mainstream media deliberately try to muddle the reality in order to link the emergence of the Islamic State to the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the Republican Bush administration.

Their motive behind this chicanery is to absolve the Obama administration’s policy of nurturing the Syrian opposition against the Syrian government since the beginning of Syria’s proxy war until June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul in Iraq and the Obama administration made a volte-face on its previous “regime change” policy of providing indiscriminate support to Syrian militants and declared a war against a faction of Syrian rebel groups, the Islamic State.

Mainstream media’s duplicitous spin-doctors misleadingly try to find the roots of the Islamic State in al-Qaeda in Iraq; however, the insurgency in Iraq died down after “the Iraq surge” of 2007. Al-Qaeda in Iraq became an impotent organization after the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June 2006 and the subsequent surge of troops in Iraq. The re-eruption of insurgency in Iraq was the spillover effect of nurturing militants in Syria, when the Islamic State overran Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in January 2014 and subsequently reached the zenith of its power by capturing Mosul in June 2014.

The borders between Syria and Iraq are highly porous and it’s impossible to contain the flow of militants and arms between the two countries. The Obama administration’s policy of providing money, weapons and training to Syrian militants in training camps located at the border regions of Turkey and Jordan bordering Syria was bound to backfire sooner or later.

Notwithstanding, over the decades, it has been a convenient stratagem of the Western powers with two-party political systems, particularly the US, to evade responsibility for the death and destruction brought upon the hapless Middle Eastern countries by their predecessors by playing blame games and finger-pointing.

For instance, during the Soviet-Afghan jihad of the 1980s, the Carter and Reagan administrations nurtured the Afghan jihadists against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul with the help of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. The Afghan jihad created a flood of millions of refugees who sought refuge in the border regions of Pakistan and Iran.

The Reagan administration’s policy of providing training and arms to the Afghan militants had the unintended consequences of spawning al-Qaeda and Taliban and it also destabilized the Af-Pak region, which is still in the midst of lawlessness, perpetual anarchy and an unrelenting Taliban insurgency more than four decades after the proxy war was fought in Afghanistan.

After the signing of the Geneva Accords in 1988, however, and the subsequent change of guard in Washington, the Clinton administration dissociated itself from the ill-fated Reagan administration’s policy of nurturing Afghan militants with the help of Gulf’s petro-dollars and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and laid the blame squarely on minor regional players.

Similarly, during the Libyan so-called “humanitarian intervention” in 2011, the Obama administration provided money and arms to myriads of tribal militias and Islamic jihadists to topple the Arab-nationalist Gaddafi regime. But after the policy backfired and pushed Libya into lawlessness, anarchy and civil war, the mainstream media pointed the finger at Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia for backing the renegade general, Khalifa Haftar, in eastern Libya, even though he had lived for more than two decades [2] in the US right next to the CIA’s headquarter in Langley, Virginia.

Regarding the Western powers’ modus operandi of waging proxy wars in the Middle East, since the times of the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the eighties, it has been the fail-safe game plan of master strategists at NATO to raise money [3] from the oil-rich emirates of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait; then buy billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the arms markets [4] in the Eastern Europe; and then provide those weapons and guerilla warfare training to the disaffected population of the victim country by using the intelligence agencies of the latter’s regional adversaries. Whether it’s Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya or Syria, the same playbook was executed to the letter.

Raising funds for proxy wars from the Gulf Arab States allows the Western executives the freedom to evade congressional scrutiny; the benefit of buying weapons from unregulated arms markets of the Eastern Europe is that such weapons cannot be traced back to the Western capitals; and using jihadist proxies to achieve strategic objectives has the advantage of taking the plea of “plausible deniability” if the strategy backfires, which it often does. Remember that al-Qaeda and Taliban were the by-products of the Soviet-Afghan jihad, and the Islamic State and its global network of terrorists are the blowback of the proxy war in Syria.

On the subject of the supposed “powerlessness” of the US in the global affairs, the Western think tanks and the corporate media’s spin-doctors generally claim that Pakistan deceived Washington in Afghanistan by providing safe havens to the Taliban; Turkey hoodwinked the US in Syria by using the war against Islamic State as a pretext for cracking down on Kurds; Saudi Arabia and UAE betrayed the US in Yemen by mounting ground offensive and airstrikes against the Houthis rebels; and once again Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt went against the ostensible policy of the US in Libya by destabilizing the Tripoli-based government, even though Khalifa Haftar is known to be an American stooge.

If the US policymakers are so naïve, then how come they still control the global political and economic order? This perennially whining attitude of the Western corporate media that such and such regional players betrayed them, otherwise they were on top of their game is actually a clever stratagem that has been deliberately designed by the spin-doctors of the Western mainstream media and foreign policy think tanks to cast the Western powers in a positive light and to vilify adversaries, even if the latter are their tactical allies in some of the regional conflicts.

Fighting wars through proxies allows the international power brokers the luxury of taking the plea of “plausible deniability” in their defense and at the same time they can shift all the blame for wrongdoing on minor regional players. The Western powers’ culpability lies in the fact that because of them a system of international justice based on sound principles of morality and justice cannot be built in which the violators can be punished for their wrongdoing and the victims of injustice, tyranny and violence can be protected.

Leaving the funding, training and arming aspects of insurgencies aside, but especially pertaining to conferring international legitimacy to an armed insurgency, like the Afghan so-called “freedom struggle” of the Cold War, or the supposedly “moderate and democratic” Libyan and Syrian insurgencies of the contemporary era, it is simply beyond the power of minor regional players and their nascent media, which has a geographically and linguistically limited audience, to cast such heavily armed and brutal insurrections in a positive light in order to internationally legitimize them; only the Western mainstream media that has a global audience and which serves as the mouthpiece of the Western deep states has perfected this game of legitimizing the absurd and selling Satans as saviors.

Footnotes:

[1] Islamic State’s top command dominated by ex-officers in Saddam’s army.

[2] Leaked tapes expose Western support for renegade Libyan general.

[3] U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels.

[4] Billions of dollars weapons flowing from Eastern Europe to Middle East.

*  *  *

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.

After several months of disappointing payrolls prints, October is set for a doozy.

The headline jobs number is expected at 85k, a sharp drop from 136K in September, largely influenced by the strike at GM which might have affected as much as 80k workers; the trend rate has held steady in recent months, though recent prints are notably below the 12-month pace, as one would expect amid mixed labor market indicators: the ADP surveyed mixed expectations, and the previous was revised down; initial jobless claims have been flat while job cut announcements rose; the Markit PMI saw the employment sub-index fall at the steepest rate since 2009 while consumer confidence signals were also mixed, with the differential between jobs “plentiful” and “hard to get” widening, boding well, and consumers’ expectations for income prospects rose even as consumers were less confident about the outlook and the expectation for more jobs in the months ahead fell.

Here is a summary of what to expect, courtesy of RanSquawk

• Non-farm Payrolls: Exp. 85k, Prev. 136k.
  • Private Payrolls: Exp. 80k, Prev. 114k.
  • Manufacturing Payrolls: Exp. -50k, Prev. -2k.
  • Government Payrolls: Prev. 22k.
• Unemployment Rate: Exp. 3.6%, Prev. 3.5%. (FOMC currently projects 3.7% at end-2019, and 4.2% in the long run).
  • U6 Unemployment Rate: Prev. 6.9%.
  • Labor Force Participation: Prev. 63.2%.
• Avg. Earnings Y/Y: Exp. 3.0%, Prev. 2.9%; M/M: Exp. 0.3%, Prev. 0.4%.
• Avg. Work Week Hours: Exp. 34.4hrs, Prev. 34.4hrs.

The street expects 85k nonfarm payrolls to be added to the US economy in October, while Goldman expects 75K new jobs, which in addition to a 46k drag from the General Motors strike, expects further declines in the services sector. The three-month trend rate currently stands at 157k, a touch above the six-month pace of 154k, though both are lower than the 12-month average of 179k.

GM EFFECT:

The October report will be adversely affected by strikes at GM. There were around 48k GM workers on weekly and bi-weekly wages, who were paid in the week running up to the strike, and will not be included in the October NFP. The impact on GM supply chains is less clear, with some estimating that as many as 200k workers may have been affected, though this has not been reflected in weekly jobless claims data which signaled just short of 12k workers impacted in key GM states (heading into the September NFP, claims were 212.75k in the NFP survey week, and have risen trivially to 215.75k into the October data). Some of the impact might also be seen in future reports, given that there may be more workers yet to make a claim. As a comparison, the GM strike in 1998 reduced payrolls by 132k, but most expect a more benign outcome in this month’s data, with a figure nearer to 50-80k suggested, analysts have opined. Away from GM, upside may come via census hiring, where 28k of temporary workers have been hired, of a targeted 40k.

ADP EMPLOYMENT:

The ADP’s gauge of private payrolls printed 125k (exp. 120k), though the previous was revised to 93k from 135k due to back fitting, rather than an ominous sign for September revisions; Due to methodological differences, the data was not affected by the 50k striking workers at GM. Moody’s economist Zandi said that job growth has “throttled” back over the last year, with the slowdown most pronounced at manufacturers and small companies. Zandi warned that if hiring weakens any further, unemployment will begin to rise.

CHALLENGER JOB CUTS:

Job cuts announced by US employers jumped to 50,275 in October, from 41,557 (down 33.5% Y/Y, however) – the second consecutive month during which cuts were lower Y/Y. Challenger said that job cuts were steady, for the most part, though it did point out increases in certain industries, particularly those experiencing disruptions from new technologies, uncertainty from government regulation or issues with trade. The report also noted that many steel companies announced cuts last month, attributed to a number of reasons, including tariffs on steel, declining demand, and market conditions. In the autos sector, companies have announced 43,025 job cuts this year, 197% higher than the 14,489 announced through the same point last year. Challenger said, however, that hiring plans by US companies were at a record high, and through October, companies announced 1,162,375 hiring plans, 431,781 of which are for the holiday season.

BUSINESS SURVEYS:

We have not had the release of the ISM surveys ahead of the jobs report, whose employment sub-indices give a read on how the labour market is progressing. Markit’s PMI report for October, however, stated that employment numbers fell for a second month, declining at the steepest rate since December 2009, which survey respondents often attribute to more cautious hiring strategies and a lack of new work to replace completed projects. These surveys, however, may also be subject to the GM-effect.

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE:

Within the Conference Board’s gauge of US consumer confidence, the differential between jobs plentiful vs jobs hard to get — which can provide a good signal for the direction of the jobless rate — rose to 35.1 from 33.2, auguring well for the jobs report, with those judging that jobs were “plentiful” rising to 46.9 from 44.8 (jobs “hard to get” rose very slightly to 11.8 from 11.6). However, the report noted that consumers’ outlook for the labour market was less upbeat, with the proportion expecting more jobs in the months ahead decreasing from 17.6 16.9, while those anticipating fewer jobs rose from 15.4 to 17.8. And on their short-term income prospects, consumers expecting an improvement increased from 19.7 to 21.1, while the proportion expecting a decrease holding steady at 6.5.

ARGUING FOR A WEAKER REPORT:

Employer surveys. Business activity surveys were mixed in October (on net stronger for manufacturing but slightly softer for services). And while the employment components generally rose for the manufacturing sector (tracker +2.3 to 53.7), they declined further for the much larger services sector (-1.7 to 51.0). As shown in Exhibit 1, the level of these surveys is consistent with an underlying pace of job growth of around 100-130k per month. Service-sector job growth was 109k in September and averaged 121k over the last six months, while manufacturing payroll employment contracted by 2k in September, below its +3k average over the last six months.

Hurricane Echo. As shown in Exhibit 2, the seasonal factors have evolved in recent years to anticipate incrementally larger October job gains, and we note the possibility that the seasonal adjustment software is fitting to the post-hurricane employment rebounds of October 2017 and 2018. If so, this would imply a higher hurdle for job growth in tomorrow’s report.

GM Strike. As indicated in the BLS strike report, 46k General Motors employees did not work during the October payroll period due to a United Auto Workers strike. The GM strike ended last weekend, meaning that this one-off drop within tomorrow’s nonfarm payroll figures is set to reverse with the November report.

ARGUING FOR A STRONGER REPORT

Labor market slack. With the labor market somewhat beyond full employment, we see the dwindling availability of workers as one factor weighing on job growth this year. In past tight labor markets however, payroll growth tends to reaccelerate in October (for example in 2007 and 1999). Accordingly, we believe some firms likely pulled forward hiring into October, anticipating a shortage of applicants in Q4.

Scope for revisions. Because August and September tend to be weak in the preliminary release—likely reflecting a recurring seasonal bias in early vintages—we note the possibility of upward revisions accompanying tomorrow’s report. Indeed, job growth over the prior two months has been revised up with the October report in 4 of the last 5 years (average revision of +35k).

NEUTRAL FACTORS

Jobless claims. Initial jobless claims were roughly unchanged in the four weeks between the payroll reference periods—averaging 216k—and are consistent with a very low pace of layoffs. Continuing claims rose by 27k from survey week to survey week, the largest sequential increase since June.

ADP. The payroll-processing firm ADP reported a 125k increase in October private employment, 15k above consensus and just below the 132k average pace over the three prior months. While the ADP report was somewhat stronger than our estimates and suggested that the underlying pace of job growth remains decent, we expect additional factors including the General Motors strike to weigh on Friday’s employment numbers.

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—rebounded by 1.6pt to +35.1 in October, not far from its cycle-high. Other job availability readings were softer: JOLTS job openings declined further to a 17-month low (-123k to 7,051k in August) and the Conference Board’s Help Wanted Online index fell (-1.4pt to 103.0 in September).

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE:

The unemployment rate likely rebounded a tenth to 3.6%. While the participation rate still appears somewhat elevated (63.2%, vs. 6-month average of 63.0%), continuing claims rebounded by 27k from survey week to survey week, and their level…

… suggests scope for a partial reversal of last month’s 50-year low in the jobless rate. At the margin, seasonal distortions in continuing claims would also argue for a higher underlying stock of unemployed workers. Note that the BLS treats striking workers as “employed not at work,” so we do not expect the strike to affect the jobless rate.

Authored by Danny Sjursen via TruthDig.com,

There were parts of President Trump’s latest speech on Syria, which, if read without the sound of The Donald’s gruff, bombastic voice, sounded a whole lot like Bernie Sanders might’ve delivered it.

That’s right, sandwiched between Trump’s standard braggadocio about how he single-handedly secured “a better future for Syria and for the Middle East,” and his cynical pivot to decry his opponents’ supposed desire to accept “unlimited migration from war-torn regions” across the U.S. border, was one of the strongest blasts of antiwar rhetoric delivered by a sitting U.S. president since Dwight Eisenhower.

If any other president—think Obama—or major liberal political figure had spoken so clearly against endless war and so poignantly diagnosed the current American disease of military hyper-interventionism, CNN and MSNBC would’ve gushed about Nobel Peace Prizes. It must be said, of course, that Trump has hardly governed according to these peacenik proclamations—he has, after all added more troops in the region, especially in Saudi Arabia, and merely reshuffled the soldiers from Syria across the border to Iraq. Nevertheless, even if the president’s actions don’t match his words, the words themselves remain important, especially from a 21st century, post-9/11 commander in chief.

No doubt, Trump’s partial withdrawal from Syria was initially clumsy, and it’s extremely difficult to parse out any sort of coherent doctrine in his muddled Mideast policy. Reducing troop levels in Syria isn’t much of an accomplishment if it’s followed, as it might be, by a shift toward drumming up or executing a Saudi/Israeli-pressured war with Iran. Still, the speech, though problematic in several areas, deserved a fairer reception from the corporate media establishment.

Beyond the intellectual dishonesty of some press outlets’ displays of reflexive anti-Trumpism, there’s the salient fact that none of the president’s critics have proposed a practical, long-term alternative strategy for the U.S. military in Northeast Syria. Crocodile tears for the Kurds are naught but a cynical cudgel with which to attack the president; there was never any established plan to permanently carve out a viable Kurdish statelet in Syria, or serious weighing of the military, diplomatic and economic costs of such an endeavor.

So, since none of the mainstream networks were willing to do it, let’s review some of the sensible things Trump said in the meat of his speech, nuggets of earthy wisdom that this forever war veteran, for one, wishes Trump would follow through on:

The same people that I watched and read — giving me and the United States advice — were the people that I have been watching and reading for many years. They are the ones that got us into the Middle East mess but never had the vision or the courage to get us out. They just talk.

This is demonstrably true. The politicians (Democrat and Republican), failed retired generals, and Bush/Obama era intelligence community retreads are the very people who crafted the failed, counterproductive interventionist policies that Trump inherited. They never had answers to the tough questions regarding why their countless military missions never stabilized the region, what the endgame of these endless wars would be, or how, exactly, the U.S. would or could extricate its troops from the Greater Middle East. Why does anyone still listen to these establishment clowns?

How many Americans must die in the Middle East in the midst of these ancient sectarian and tribal conflicts?

That’s a hell of a good question, Mr. President. If the term is, indeed, “must,” then the logical and ethical answer should be zero. And that should preclude any absurd, future war with Iran—if only Trump would follow through with his still-unfulfilled campaign promises.

Across the Middle East, we have seen anguish on a colossal scale. We have spent $8 trillion on wars in the Middle East, never really wanting to win those wars. But after all that money was spent and all of those lives lost, the young men and women gravely wounded — so many — the Middle East is less safe, less stable, and less secure than before these conflicts began.

That’s the rub, now, isn’t it? Though the $8 trillion figure might be a tad high, Trump isn’t far off. The Cost of War Project at Brown University came to the same general conclusions after an exhausting and ongoing study of the outlays and outcomes of America’s post-9/11 wars. In fact, the reality is even worse than Trump claimed in the speech. By a lowball estimate, researchers at Brown demonstrate that these region-shattering wars have killed 244,000 civilians and 6,950 U.S. soldiers, and they have created 21 million refugees. For all that, Trump is correct to note that, even by State Department global terrorism statistics, the region is less safe, less stable and infused with more Islamist “terrorists,” who’ve multiplied faster than America’s beloved troopers could ever hope to kill them.

The job of our military is not to police the world. Other nations must step up and do their fair share. That hasn’t taken place.

Also true, or at least it ought to be. Unfortunately, “policing” the world is precisely what Bush II and Obama (and Trump himself) has had me and my fellow soldiers doing since at least October 2001. And it hasn’t worked, hasn’t made America safer, hasn’t made the world a better place. Quite the opposite.

As for Syria, at least now—much to the chagrin of the bipartisan establishment elite—Russia, Turkey, the Assad regime and the Kurds are negotiating an admittedly messy settlement in their near abroad. And if it is truly a mess, as it’s all but certain to be, then what’s so bad about having Putin mired in it? All this talk of “surrendering” Syria to Putin is so much exaggerated malarkey. Syria has always been a Soviet, and then Russian, client state, home to a longstanding naval base at Tartus, and clearly in Moscow’s orbit. In that sense nothing has changed, and as before, Syria—even if ruled by an Assad and backed by a Putin——presents no tangible, let alone existential, threat to the United States, unless, that is, Islamic State does reconstitute. However, Russia and Assad, at least, have a distinct interest in avoiding that outcome.

Taken as a whole, Trump’s remarks included some profound and piercing antiwar material, along with the usual nonsense one expects from this president. As such, accompanying the quite appropriate criticism of the speech, an honest media doing its job ought to have cheered the parts of value and generated a national conversation about Trump’s appraisal of the woes of American forever war. Then, a functioning press should’ve held the president’s feet to the proverbial fire and asked him why his practical actions so rarely cohere with his, in this case, sensible words. That the media has not, and will not, take antiwar rhetoric seriously and grapple with real questions of militarist policy is further proof that it, along with Congress and the generals, was bought and sold long ago by the military-industrial complex.

*  *  *

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to Truthdig. His work has also appeared in Harper’s, The L.A. Times, The Nation, Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post and The Hill. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, “Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.” He co-hosts the progressive veterans’ podcast “Fortress on a Hill.” Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.

People who take the highly addictive anti-anxiety medication sold under the brand name Xanax have a new worry; contaminated medication.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals has issued a voluntary nationwide recall of a Alprazolam tablets (USP C-IV 0.5 mg, generic), in a lot distributed between July and August of this year, according to Newsweek.

The affected batch is lot number 8082708 and was sold in 500-pill bottles with an expiry date of September 2020. The recall has been issued on account of possible contamination with a foreign substance.

As of right now, the decision to recall sales of lot number 8082708 appears to be a precautionary action. According to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statement published Saturday, any adverse health effects relating to the batch have yet to be reported. –Newsweek

That said, “Clinical impact from the foreign material, if present, is expected to be rare, but the remote risk of infection to a patient cannot be ruled out,” according to the company.

Anyone who has experienced medical issued they believe may have been caused by the drug is advised to speak with a medical professional, and can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

A powerful benzodiazepine, Xanax works by targeting gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, making patients more relaxed and less anxious. It is incredibly easy to become addicted to the drug, and quitting cold turkey can result in life-threatening symptoms such as seizures.

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

Stephen Cohen and I emphasize that the state of tension today between the United States and Russia is more dangerous than during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. For calling needed attention to the risk of nuclear war heightened by the current state of tension, both Cohen and I have been called “Russian dupes/agents” by PropOrNot, a website suspected of being funded by an element of the US military/security complex.

Cohen and I emphasize that during the Cold War both sides were working to reduce tensions and to build trust. President John F. Kennedy worked with Khruschev to defuse the dangerous Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon made arms control agreements with the Soviet leaders, as did President Jimmy Carter. President Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to end the Cold War. President George H.W. Bush’s administration gave assurances to Gorbachev that if the Soviets agreed to the renunification of Germany, the US would not move NATO one inch to the East.

These accomplishments were all destroyed by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama neoconized regimes. President Donald Trump’s intention to normalize US/Russian relations has been blocked by the US military/security complex, presstitute media, and Democratic Party.

The Russiagate hoax and currently the illegitimate impeachment process have succeeded in preventing any reduction in the dangerous state of tensions between the two nuclear powers.

Those of us who lived and fought the Cold War are acutely aware of the numerous occasions when false warnings of incoming ICBMs and other moments of high tension could have resulted in nuclear Armageddon.

Former CIA official Ray McGovern reminds us that on October 27, 1962, during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a single Soviet Navy submarine captain, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, prevented the outbreak of nuclear war. Arkhipov was one of two captains on Soviet submarine B-59. After hours of B-59 being battered by depth charges from US warships, the other captain, Valentin Grigorievich Savitsky readied a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon capable of wiping out the entire USS Randolph carrier task force, to be readied for launch. It didn’t happen only because Arkhipov was present and countermanded the order and brought the Soviet submarine to the surface. Ray McGovern tells the story here: 

…and you can read it in Daniel Ellsberg’s book, The Doomsday Machine. The really scary part of the story is that US intelligence was so incompetent that Washington had no idea that Soviet nuclear weapons were in the combat area on a submarine undergoing debt-charging by the US Navy. The brass thought they could teach the Soviets a lesson by sinking a submarine and came close to getting the United States destroyed.

Another Soviet hero who prevented nuclear war was Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov who disobeyed Soviet military protocol and did not pass on reports of incoming US ICBMs. He did not believe that there was a military/political basis for such an attack and concluded it was a malfunction of the Soviet satellite warning system, which it was.

Many times both Americans and Soviets overrode warnings on the basis of judgment. My colleague, Zbigniew Brezezinski told me the story of being awakened at 2AM with reports of incoming Soviet ICBMs. It turned out that a simulation of an attack had in some way gotten into the warning system and was reported as real. It was a very close call. Someone doubted it enough to detect the error before Brezezinski woke the president.

Today with tensions so high and neither side trusting the other, the probability of human judgment prevailing over official warning systems is much lower.

Over the years I have tried to correct the widespread misunderstanding and misrepresentation of President Reagan’s military buildup/starwars hype and hostility toward Marxist, or perhaps merely leftwing reform movements, in Granada and Nicaragua. With his economic program in place and stagflation on the way out, Reagan’s plan was to bring the Soviets to the bargaining table by threatening their broke economy with the expense of an arms race. The plan also depended on preventing any Marxist advances in Central America or offshore islands. The Soviets had to see that there were no prospects for communist expansion and that they needed to get down to peace in order to free resources for their broken economy.

Reading Ben Macintyre’s The Spy and The Traitor, the story of KBG colonel Oleg Gordievsky, an asset of Britain’s MI6, made me aware for the first time how dangerous Reagan’s plan was. American intelligence was so far off-track that Washington did not realize that a plan designed to scare the Soviets into peace was instead convincing them that the US was readying an all-out nuclear attack.

At the time the Soviet leader was the former KGB chief, Yuri Andropov. The ABLE ARCHER NATO war game during the first part of November 1983 simulated an escalating conflict culminating in a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. The Soviets did not see it as a war game and regarded it as American preparation for a real attack. What prevented Soviet preemptive action was Gordievsky’s report to MI6 that the Americans were raising Soviet anxiety to the breaking point. This woke up Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to the threat they were creating with their bellicose words and deeds. The CIA later confessed: “Gordievsky’s information was an epiphany for President Reagan . . . only Gordievsky’s timely warning to Washington via MI6 kept things from going too far.”

In my seasoned opinion and in that of Stephen Cohen, with Hillary almost elected president branding the president of Russia as “the New Hitler,” with constant provocations and demonizations of Russia and her leaders, with the accumulation of nuclear-capable missiles on Russia’s borders, with an orchestrated Russiagate by US security agencies blocking President Trump from normalizing relations, things have already gone too far. The kinds of false alarms and miscalculations described above are more likely to have deadly consequences than ever before.

Indeed, this seems to be the intention. Why else are people such as Stephen Cohen and myself branded “Russian agents” for telling the truth and giving accurate heartfelt warnings about the danger of such high tensions when neither side trusts the other?

It is reckless and irresponsible to demonize people of integrity such as Stephen Cohen and myself as “Russian agents.” When telling the truth becomes the mark of being a disloyal American, what hope is there?

Officials in Beijing will combine the country’s state-of-the-art facial recognition technology with a version of their controversial ‘credit system’ to speed up security checks in the city’s overcrowded metro system, according to HKFP.

Long queues and commuters arguing with staff over slow security procedures are common sites during rush hour in the metro system of the 20 million-strong metropolis. –HKFP

Cameras set up at the entrance to subway stations will scan the faces of passengers, sorting them into different security channels, according to the director of the Beijing Rail Traffic Control Center, Zhan Minghui.

He added that the plan will involve the creation of a “passenger credit system” in which ‘white-listed’ individuals will enjoy expedited security clearance. Those who receive “abnormal feedback” after their face scans will be subject to extra security measures.

“The technique aims to improve the efficiency of security checks and includes both body checks and luggage screening when large numbers of passengers enter the station,” Zhan said on Thursday at an urban transportation forum in Beijing.

In May, the Beijing subway announced that it had started “deducting credit points” from passengers who eat in metro cars.

Officials did not announce a timeline for the rollout.

Beijing’s subway system currently handles approximately 12 million trips on an average workday – a figure expected to increase to 17 million within the next two years.

China’s use of facial recognition is becoming more commonplace. The Beijing Universal Studios amusement park which is currently under construction will admit visitors without a ticket – and will use cameras that scan their faces to determine whether they have paid for a ticket.

Meanwhile, a new law published on the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) website and distributed to all Chinese telecom carriers on Sept. 27th requires that “all telecom carriers must use facial recognition to test whether an applicant who applies for internet connection is the owner of the ID that they use since Dec. 1. At the same time, the carriers must test that the ID is genuine and valid.”

If that wasn’t Orwellian enough, Chinese scientists have recently developed an artificial intelligence (AI) enabled 500 megapixel cloud camera that’s capable of panoramic capture of an entire stadium with the ability to target a single individual in an instant, Global Times reported.

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

All things considered, it seems appropriate that GQ, once the final word on male fashions, chose the Halloween season to detail the ‘new masculinity,’ which is nothing less than horrible, grotesque and, yes, even sinister.

There was a strong temptation to simply ignore the hype over GQ and its October issue, which explores the ways that “traditional notions of masculinity are being challenged.” After all, here was yet another cheap attempt to subvert men and their ‘toxic masculinity’ lest some hirsute XY chromosome carrier attempts to fix a leaking toilet, speak his mind at a meeting or even take out the leader of a nefarious terrorist group. Moreover, the issue had already been chewed over by other writers, so it didn’t seem necessary at first to add to the conversation.

Pharrell for GQ – The New Masculinity Issue 2019 #pharrell #gq pic.twitter.com/M8SfwEO4HC

— Magazine Covers (@_MagazineCovers) October 14, 2019

Of all the various commentary on the subject, however, none dared mention the elephant in the GQ hate piece – and make no mistake, it is hate.

This is not the ongoing war against males and their so-called ‘toxic masculinity” per se, but rather the war against ‘white toxic masculinity’ and the malignancy believed to be lurking below the surface of every social ill, known as ‘white patriarchy’. In other words, there is a lot more to this PC obsession with masculinity than first meets the eye. So let’s start at the beginning.

On the GQ cover we have Pharrell Williams, American rapper and songwriter, all dressed up with nowhere to go in a flowing and very flaccid pumpkin dress. Some might be wondering, since GQ apparently did not, why men would take any masculinity cues from an individual who once penned an outwardly misogynist song entitled ‘Blurred Lines’ – one of the best-selling singles of all time – which only succeeded in blurring the lines between consensual sex and full-blown rape? The video has been described as an “orgy of female objectification.”

Nevertheless, GQ editor Will Welch celebrated his joyfully “frictionless” day with Williams where the rapper opened his soul about the ‘new masculinity,’ which, in these post-MeToo times, has no safe space for White males. The conversation quickly turned to transgender lifestyles and the villainous white patriarchy that apparently is to blame for things being so out of whack in the world today.

“On the surface, it is an older-straight-white-male world,” Williams complained. “But it has prompted this [transgender] conversation that I think is deeper than what the new masculinity is or what a non-gender-binary world looks like.

“I think we’re in spiritual warfare.”

Almost imperceptibly, GQ has already made the sleight of hand from ‘white patriarchy to toxic masculinity to transgender lifestyle.’

Had Welch just stopped the conversation at the esteemed Mr. Williams, perhaps we could just let this ‘new masculinity’ magazine slip harmlessly into the dust-bin of obscurity. But alas, GQ does not stop at the glorified rapper, but goes on to pick the brains of 18 “influential people who are shaping our culture now.” Since we are talking about GQ (of former ‘Gentlemen’s Quarterly’ fame) it might be assumed that mostly rugged males and perhaps one or two token females would be chosen to speak their minds on the issue of masculinity. Not in these woke times. In fact, this assembled confab would have trouble putting together a single XY chromosome among them.

This diverse and very colorful group that apparently knows so much about masculinity is comprised of nine feminists, one transgender male (that is, a biological female), three homosexual men, and three men who are in heterosexual relationships, none of whom, by the way, are representative of the white Caucasian race. The lone ‘rugged male’ among the pack, white NBA star Kevin Love, is unmarried and childless. Love devoted the bulk of his interview to explaining why men are “supposed to be emotional,” which may go far at explaining his present bachelor status.

Masculinity then and now pic.twitter.com/fJZQWaWhfX

— Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) October 14, 2019

The advice proffered by this collection of voices is so incredibly discordant I would suggest the reader take the time to examine them individually, painful as that may be. Personally, two particular comments really left an impression and revealed the real agenda at play here. All this talk about ‘toxic masculinity’ is in fact aimed at ‘white toxic masculinity’ and the white male population in general. This is revealed first of all by the demographic makeup of the cast of characters, of which there are only two white males, the one being homosexual, the other an emotional bachelor. Needless to say, that is not a fair representation of the US demographics with regards to straight white males, which (still) make up the overwhelming majority of the American male population.

Furthermore, the term ‘white’ is bantered about with disdain so deep you’d think the subject were climate change or male pattern baldness. In fact, I’d go so far as to call it hate. For example, Asia Kate Dillon, introduced heroically as the “actor who brought gender nonconformity to America’s living rooms,” spoke about how she carries “white-body privilege” as if she were speaking about the Bubonic plague.

Next, in its interview with rapper ‘Killer Mike,’ GQ asks about his “weapon of choice to fight white patriarchy?” Hold on, Mr. Welch. I thought this was supposed to be an expose on the ‘new masculinity.’ So why has this conversation veered off the road into a bigoted discussion on race, specifically white race?

Later, Hannah Gadsby, the “comic who’s taking on toxic masculinity,” explains with all the dead humor she can muster, that “this is the first time that straight white cis men have been forced to think of themselves as anything other than human neutral,” which makes zero sense, thus explaining why nobody thought to broach the topic before.

In any case, the underlying message here is that it is not so much ‘masculinity’ that is toxic and worthy of extermination, but rather ‘white masculinity’ and, as the article screams between and in the lines, ‘white patriarchy.’ Why is there no negative singling out of the Black Americans, for example, or Muslim men in this discussion on ‘toxic masculinity’? Are we to assume that only white masculinity is infected with toxicity? The rampant violence in America’s inner cities, as well as abroad in European capitals that welcomed millions of Middle Eastern refugees, should warn us against jumping to such radical, unfounded conclusions. White Europeans have been guilty of historical crimes, but certainly no less than any other race of peoples. Yet American liberals are determined to change that historic record, for what ulterior motive I have no idea.

Yet nowhere is common sense being applied when discussing ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘white patriarchy,’ which are now being used recklessly in the same sentence in a cause and effect relationship. That is a very dangerous and shortsighted assessment of the social, cultural and political realities facing Western civilization. We embrace it at the risk of total societal collapse.

It isn’t just trade where China has been beating the U.S. over the last decade.

In fact, those who have been paying attention have surely noticed that the U.S. is now trailing behind China in numerous technologies, like 5G networks, drones, batteries, solar energy and cryptocurrency. 

The role of private the private tech sector in the U.S. is becoming more critical as the country tries to keep pace, according to the Wall Street Journal, who cited a Defense Department official. 

Michael Brown, director of the Defense Innovation Unit, a branch of the Pentagon commented that the list of technologies where China has the lead is now “extensive”. And in areas where the U.S. has the lead, it is hardly insurmountable, Brown says. 

Brown commented: “A number of them are concerning from a national-security standpoint.”

One example is that the U.S. government and military use drones manufactured by Chinese companies DJI Technology Co. 

Brown believes that part of the problem is a lack of government investment in the U.S. The government’s investment in the military has been on a steady decline since the 1960’s, he notes.

And so that leaves the the work to technology companies in Silicon Valley. Tensions between Washington D.C. and Silicon Valley can make that partnership difficult, however. Certain companies, like Alphabet, have opposed working on technology that could be used in combat, while other startups worry about the bureaucracy of doing business with the Pentagon. Other companies worry about lucrative commercial deals that could be tossed aside as government projects take precedence. 

Google pulled out of a project last year to help the U.S. develop aerial-drone imagery after opposition from its employees. 

Brown says that many tech companies don’t want to work with the Pentagon – especially smaller companies focused on building revenue. Brown has helped bring about 60 new vendors, mostly small tech companies, to the Department of Defense since 2015.

He comments that the relationship can be difficult if big companies “crowdsource” their business strategy by listening too much to their employees’ political views while making business decisions. 

Brown commented: “The private sector isn’t necessarily going to take the risk to invest in long-term technologies where the payoff is uncertain. That is the role of government.”

Brown also said China’s government-led initiative to tech dominance was a good example to follow.

“The U.S. has been a bit allergic to how China manages their economy with industrial policy,” he continued. He also said that China’s approach is “moving them forward.”

Brown co-authored a Department of Defense paper in 2017 that warned about Chinese investments in private tech startups giving the nation the “crown jewels” of the U.S. The paper was followed by new policies restricting Chinese investments in startups, but was also criticized as stereotyping Chinese investors as spies.

Which, of course, some of them are – but that’s besides the point, we guess.

Brown concluded: “They are very focused on technology transfer because they see that as a way to economically transform their society. The concern I have is that [the paper] is used too much as a justification for protectionist ideas and not enough for stimulus for further investment.”

Authored by Steven Guinness,

Over the past three years a popular narrative has sprung up in the independent media, which says that the UK’s decision to leave the EU and Donald Trump’s rise to U.S. President is somehow evidence of globalists (and by extension central banks) ‘losing control‘. From what I’ve observed this belief is cultivated in large part by those who are ideologically disposed in favour of Brexit and/or Trump, rather than it being indicative of reality.

The suggestion that central banks in particular have ‘backed themselves into a corner‘ on monetary policy is often where attention is focused. But there is a great deal more to central banks than just their stance on interest rates and stimulus measures.

Following on from a series of articles I published over the summer, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve are quietly progressing with plans to radically reform their payment systems, primarily to make them compatible with Fintech providers and lay the foundations for the introduction of central bank digital currency (CBDC).

First let’s look at some recent developments from the Bank of England.

Bank of England

Whilst Mark Carney is the man that analysts and the media pay closest attention to at the bank, it is Victoria Cleland – the BOE’s Executive Director for Banking, Payments and Innovation – that has the most to say right now on the subject of the future of money.

In a speech given on September 24th (Payments: A platform for innovation), Cleland reiterated a key message from the BOE motivated by a Future of Finance report published in June this year: ‘a new economy and new demographics demand a new financial system‘.

Cleland breaks this down into five areas: the enhancement of payment systems for the digital age; endorsing a platform to improve access to finance for small firms; supporting transition to a carbon-neutral economy; developing a regtech (regulatory technology) and data strategy; facilitating businesses use of technology. The latter is a generalised term that when broken down encompasses distributed ledger technology.

The UK’s Real-Time Gross Settlement payment system was earmarked for reform back in January 2016, and is a system which Cleland admits ‘not much business can be done without it, and most consumers are ultimately reliant on it.’ Quite clearly, though, this is not sufficient for the Bank of England. Hence why they are in the process of ‘renewing‘ the service amidst the growth of digital technology.

The pace of this renewal has gathered significant momentum over the past twelve months. In her speech Cleland confirmed that a consultation paper will be published in 2020 that will focus on ‘the appropriate level of access for payment service providers to the bank’s infrastructure and balance sheet.’

As I have made mention of previously, the ‘renewal‘ of RTGS is being undertaken, in Cleland’s own words, through choice rather than necessity. Here she reaffirmed that overhauling RTGS is a ‘challenging but necessary programme.’

Within central banks and global economic institutions, there is a fixation on the need for the ‘financial architecture‘ to be reformed in the face of geopolitical disorder. The architecture they have in mind includes the adoption of technology such as distributed ledger, an essential component in the quest to introduce CBDC’s.

Whilst the BOE’s position is that the renewed RTGS will not be built on DLT, it will nevertheless have the required functionality so that firms using the technology can connect to the service. Cleland was adamant that the next generation of RTGS will be ‘future-proof”, meaning it will be sufficiently advanced so that companies yet to exist will be able to ‘interface‘ with it.

Non-bank payment service providers already hold accounts in the current RTGS. According to Cleland, ‘many more firms are exploring the possibility of joining.’

As for when the new service can be expected to launch, the timetable is beginning to look more clear. The onset of 2022 will see the first phase of technology changes, with 2023 being targeted as the moment when the core RTGS service will be replaced. By 2024, ‘additional functionality will be delivered, to further drive innovation and change.’ 2025 is when the BOE expect to close the programme. If Cleland is to be believed, the bank are ‘on track against our plan.’

Important to appreciate is that the BOE’s work in the field of payment systems is not in isolation. As Cleland points out, ‘close collaboration is a crucial part of how we can collectively transform the payments landscape‘.

Which brings us onto the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve

The Fed’s equivalent to Victoria Cleland is Lael Brainard, who is chair of the Committee on Payments, Clearing, and Settlement as well as being a member of the board of governors.

On August 5th Brainard gave a speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas about the Fed’s decision to develop a new round the clock real-time payment system called FedNow. I wrote an article about this at the time, but since then the conversation has advanced somewhat.

Two months after the FedNow announcement, Brainard followed up with another speech (‘Digital Currencies, Stablecoins, and the Evolving Payments Landscape‘) at ‘The Future of Money in the Digital Age‘, an event held in Washington D.C. and sponsored by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Also in attendance was Hyun Song Shin, the head of research at the Bank for International Settlements.

To substantiate the intrigue around digital currencies, Brainard cited Facebook’s planned Libra project as giving ‘urgency to the debate over what form money can take‘, chiefly because of its ‘potential global reach.’ Ten years ago it was Bitcoin that first introduced to the public the concept of digital currency, a fact that Brainard recognised when she said that its ‘emergence created an entirely new payment instrument supported by distributed ledger technology.’

When the initial plans for FedNow were released, Brainard made no specific mention of distributed ledger technology. At the time she said that ‘engagement between the Fed and the industry’ would determine the final make-up of the payment system.

As discussed in August, my position remains that when the final design of FedNow is ratified, it will almost certainty have the ability to interact with systems that operate distributed ledgers. This appears logical when you consider that the Bank of England are moving in this direction. In 2018 they announced that their new RTGS service would enable systems that use DLT to achieve settlement in central bank money.

On DLT, Brainard stated in her speech that the advantages it could offer to central banks include ‘operational resilience, increasing transparency, and simplifying recordkeeping.’ This is one of the reasons why commercial banks are actively incorporating the technology that underpins digital currencies, either by going into partnership with Fintech companies or by issuing their own variants. Hence the rise of what are known as Stablecoins.

Brainard made the point that if consumers came to depend on ‘Stablecoins‘ – which she characterised as being assets that seek to ‘maintain stable value by tying the digital currency to an asset or basket of assets‘, then this could ‘shrink demand for physical cash.’ It is no secret that endeavours now underway at central banks are rooted in attaining the necessary mix of technological advancement and knowledge in order to position the global monetary system to becoming cashless. Which is why introducing digital currency through the likes of Bitcoin and Facebook’s Libra has been of importance to banking elites. They are already gaining large scale public acceptance of cashless technology by marketing digital payments as being more convenient and secure. But in terms of managing to fully ostracising cash as a relic, they are not there yet.

We get a sense through Brainard’s words of how central bank plans for a digital currency future have taken shape. She spoke of how ‘the rapid migration of payments to digital systems prompted interest in the issuance of central bank digital currencies‘, and how the ‘potential for global stablecoin systems has intensified the interest in CBDC’s.’ This is not surprising given that CBDC’s are the long term objective of internationalists.

Even so, a continued narrative has been how access to CBDC’s by consumers would raise ‘profound legal, policy and operational questions.’ Were CBDC’s issued to consumers, Brainard believes it could ‘conceivably require the central bank to keep a running record of all payment data using the digital currency – a stark difference from cash.’ Again, this is part of the plan. The abolition of cash would result in the abolition of anonymity, meaning no citizen could interact with money without being permanently monitored. Monetary surveillance if you will.

Already Brainard is openly asking if the Federal Reserve could acquire the authority to ‘issue currency in digital form and, if necessary, to establish digital wallets for the public.’ China have been the pioneers in the field of digital wallets through Alibaba and WeChat. Now this technology is gearing up to become commonplace in the West at the expense of cash.

But the Fed may not stop there. Due to ‘the operational risks of central bank digital currency,’ Brainard revealed that this could require the Fed to ‘develop the operating capacity to access or manage individual accounts, which could number in the hundreds of millions.’

The greatest deception around the whole topic of digital currency is how under the auspices of central banks it would function within a decentralised structure. The point of FedNow, and the Bank of England’s RTGS renewal, is that payments will continue to go through them. Introducing CBDC’s would further tighten their grip over the financial system. The set up that central bankers favour is of a permissioned blockchain network, as opposed to a permissionless network. The former would require permission to access, whereas the latter theoretically has no such restrictions.

DLT is often lauded as decentralised technology, but should it become part of the next generation of payment systems then it will in part be controlled through regulation. The BOE and the Fed form part of their country’s regulatory authorities.

According to Brainard, U.S regulators are ‘closely examining the specific functions of particular stablecoins and cryptocurrencies more broadly to determine whether and where they fit in the existing regulatory structure and whether additional authorities or guidance is necessary.’

Meanwhile, in ‘supporting payments innovation‘, the Fed are ‘actively investing in our payments infrastructure‘, at a point in time when the central bank ‘potentially enters another phase in the evolution of money and payments.’

We will likely see far-reaching innovation in payments in the coming years, with a plethora of new and emerging options, including stablecoins.

Does this sound like a central bank that is losing control? Just as the technology necessary for digital currencies is progressing to the stage of its imminent introduction, the central banking community is redefining their payment systems to accommodate it. Rather than their power base diminishing, they are instead working hand in hand with private developers to ensure that they remain the arbiters of the global financial system. So far, they are succeeding.

China’s manufacturing PMI slumped deeper into contraction on Thursday — as economic growth in the country fell to its weakest pace in three decades. The economic slowdown, coupled with massive corporate leverage, has created a ticking debt time bomb, which could explode in the next global recession. 

The unraveling and coming debt crisis in China will take a series of corporate debt defaults to spook investors, and perhaps, the first series of defaults has already started. 

The latest causality is Shandong-based steelmaker Xiwang Group Co., who defaulted on a $142 million bond last week, has sparked contagion fear with other companies in the same region, reported Bloomberg.

Then on Wednesday, Shandong Sanxing Group Co.’s 2021 dollar bond and China Hongqiao Group Ltd.’s dollar bond due 2023 plummeted to their lowest levels ever as contagion from Xiwang’s default continued to frighten investors. 

“Xiwang’s default onshore has raised concerns that other privately owned enterprises in Shandong, particularly those from the same locality, may have been associated with the firm,” said Wu Qiong, executive director at BOC International Holdings Ltd. in Hong Kong, who spoke with Bloomberg. 

China’s onshore credit markets continue to erupt with stress after 2019 defaulted bonds have already hit 2018 highs.

Fitch Ratings said the default rate of all Chinese issuers in the first three quarters of this year was 1.03%. By historical standards, the default rate is much higher than last year. Most of the firms skipping out on bond payments were private entities. 

The cash crunch comes at a time when overleveraged companies in China are reeling from a global synchronized slowdown and a controlled deleveraging period by the government to create a soft bottom in the economy. 

“Defaults are likely to continue rising, as many medium- and small-sized private firms are facing significant refinancing pressures,” Zhang Shuncheng, associate director of corporate research at Fitch, said in an interview. “Private companies suffer from many problems in their own operations, not to mention the impact from the slowing economy and tight credit environment.”

China’s corporate sector downfall is overleverage, taken on during the global synchronized recovery. Now, a synchronized decline, these firms are starting to deleverage, adding to the downward pressure in the economy. 

Hedge fund manager Kyle Bass, the CIO of Hayman Capital Management, has famously said China’s coming economic crash could be three to four times bigger than the 2008 subprime crisis. 

Bass said in August, China’s “recklessly built” banking system could come tumbling down in the next global recession. 

As long as Beijing refuses to spark a massive credit injection spree, the global economy will continue to falter — this could usher in the next global crisis, one where China’s corporate sector implodes, well that’s at least what Bass thinks…