Lindsey Graham: Fighting A War With North Korea Would Be “Worth It”

Before he was pushed out of the West Wing, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon said in a purportedly unauthorized interview that what President Trump recently referred to as “phase two” – the dreaded “military option” for confronting North Korea – would inevitably lead to millions of casualties on the South Korean side of the DMZ. And that would be from conventional weapons alone.

And, as noted earlier, after a brief detente that saw the US and North Korea purportedly move closer to dialogue courtesy of the South Korea Olympics, the bellicose rhetoric that had become a near-daily presence in US media headlines is set to make a comeback. And who better to kick things off than Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator, former Trump antagonist, and perennial cheerleader for US military intervention virtually everywhere.

Graham

Lindsey Graham

Graham told CNN during a brief interview that the devastating collateral damage caused by a US military strike against North Korea would be “worth it.”

“All the damage that would come from a war would be worth it in terms of long-term stability and national security,” the Republican senator from South Carolina told CNN. “I’m completely convinced that President Trump and his team reject the policy of containment… They’ve drawn a red line here and it is to never let North Korea build a nuclear-tipped missile to hit America.”

In another absurd claim, Graham claims that Americans shouldn’t worry about the deadly consequences of a targeted strike in North Korea, because all of the violence and killing will be unfolding over there.

And with that, Graham exposes the hypocrisy at the core of the aggressive foreign policy posturing that has dominated American politics since the days of Henry Kissinger: as long as there are minimal American casualties, the US shouldn’t hesitate to intervene in foreign affairs even if (or perhaps especially) it means millions of casualties.

“If there’s going to be a war to stop [Kim Jong-un], it will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here,” he added. “And [Trump] told me that to my face.”

“That may be provocative, but not really. When you’re president of the United States, where does your allegiance lie? To the people of the United States.”

As we reported earlier, the KCNA referred to the drills that are set to resume next month as bringing “dark clouds of a war to hang over the Korean Peninsula.” It also called for the international community to denounce Washington’s push to “aggravate the situation on the Korean peninsula at any cost.”

And what’s worse for the US, North Korea isn’t the only foreign adversary engaging in menacing rhetoric. In a surprisingly bellicose speech made yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled a new long-range ballistic missile that he says is capable of circumventing US anti-ballistic missile protections, a reference to the US-funded missile shield installed by NATO in Eastern Europe.

While we doubt that that Graham’s opinion would be changed if faced with the specter of potential Russian involvement as part of a North Korean operation, the fact that US neocons are perfectly willing to risk a nuclear war just to promote the interests of the US military-industrial complex is very concerning, especially now that with the Olympics over, there is little stopping the North Korean conflict from escalating to its next, and much deadlier, phase.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2H3BlEN Tyler Durden

Bill Maher: The US Media Manufactures More “Fake News” Than Russia Ever Could

Every once in a while, Bill Maher reminds us that he’s the only liberal pundit on TV who will call “the tolerant” left on its BS. In his latest weekly show, Maher released a helpful summary of “rules for identifying fake news” – which everybody who posts on social media about the campaign-era predations of shadowy Russian trolls and the mechanics of “internalized misogyny” would do well to watch: “Fake News” isn’t some made-up phenomenon concocted by pro-Trump bloggers. It’s a very real and disturbing trend that goes much further in tearing at the social fabric of American society than $100,000 of spending on Facebook ads ever could.

In his monologue “explainer” on how to spot fake news, Maher admits that Trump voters have good reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream media and its tendency toward hyperbole and exaggeration that often leads CNN, the Huffington Post, Slate and their peers to manufacture controversies out of thing air. Or, as he puts it, just because a few people on Twitter with no followers and no real-life influence are angry, doesn’t mean the rest of America feels that way…

“Since so much of what passes for today’s journalism is anything but…how about some rules for identifying actual news.

“If anybody is demanding an apology…unless they have hostages, that’s not news.

“And when the offended group are identified as the internet, twitter or people – it’s nobody. I guarantee when you click on the story the internet is three losers with a combined twitter following of their mom.”

“I used to think something was news if a journalist reported it. But really I live in a world where its news if Mariah Carey’s tit flops out because Twitter will respond and then a journalist reports on the controversy. If a boob flops in the forest and nothing is heard about it doesn’t make a sound. But if three jackasses tweet about it, it’s news.”

Maher gives several examples of what passes as news, including the “controversy surrounding Jennifer Lawrence’s performance in the movie “Red Sparrow”. The mainstream press reported that a shot of Lawrence with a group of men was unforgivably sexist…because Lawrence wasn’t wearing a coat (while the men in the shot were).

Maher threw up all over the “story” which just happened to be reported in dozens of “serious” media outlets, despite having zero social import or even any grounding in reality.

Here’s the headline from Elle online and a hundred other sites: ‘Jennifer Lawrence’s latest red sparrow protocol has twitter calling out gender inequality. See because the men are wearing coats but she’s not. And even though that was her choice, somebody with 11 followers didn’t like it so the the story was reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Post, Fox News…”

Now all these esteemed news organizations aren’t saying they think it’s a big deal because they’re serious journalists. They’d rather be writing about Syria or the oceans dying but oh the humanity, Jennifer Lawrence didn’t have a coat. Wrap her up, wrap her up!”

Such “clickbait” stories like this aren’t rare, in fact as Maher admits they have become the norm, to an extent that most consumers of news hardly recognize how ridiculous they sound.

“This is not an outlier, this is a constant and prominent part of today’s journalism. Creating some bullshit non-issue that a few trolls will go apeshit over, then reporting on those tweets like all of America’s talking about nothing else.”

Justin Timberlake used a protection of Prince for his Superbowl halftime show and people are furious…nope nobody cared.

People are really mad that Sean White dragged the American flag after he won the gold…nope not even a little you fucking liars.””Weight Watchers is targeting teens and twitter is outraged. No it isn’t, it’s the same three people. And it’s not hard to find three people who are mad at anything. I could say good morning and three people on twitter would object: ‘Good in your privileged world, Bill Maher’.”

Yet considering the mainstream media’s obsession with these types of stories, it is no surprise that a sizable chunk of the US population has lost its faith in the validity and and motivations of news organizations like CNN. What is surprising is that people like Maher are finally admitting what is really going on…

“No wonder fake news resonates so much with Trump fans – because so much of it is fake! Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of controversy that aren’t controversial. And outrages that aren’t outrageous.

And what is really going on is that as Maher admits, what the US media is doing is no different than the alleged “discord-sowing” misinformation campaign that Mueller recently accused 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies of perpetrating on the US population?

“Because places like the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed and Salon – they make their money based on how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what’s important and instead creating divisions to pursue their own selfish ends. Wait isn’t that what Russia was doing to us? Yes it is.

And we need to stop both of them from using us as the cocks in their cock fights. And so I saw to the people who were unable to go on after seeing Kendal Jenner tweet the wrong colored emoji A bit of advice: If you didn’t like what Kendal did with a brown fist…then don’t watch her sister’s sex tape.”

So, next time you’re reading about the epidemic of teenagers eating Tide Pods, or rushing to be the first to know all about the latest Kardashian clickbait du jour, don’t: not only will it stop rewarding hollow headlines designed for clicks, it will force the US media to once again focus on news that truly matters. The real news.

And no, it’s not easy: in fact, as the media’s current business model shows, clickbait works, which is why it is easier to just blame someone else for creating it and “sowing discord”, when the real culprit is America’s endless superficial, scandal-seeking obsession, always eager to to click on the next catchy, if idiotic news story, and then cover up its guilt by blaming, why who else, Russia.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2I0oO6f Tyler Durden

Ominous Sign For The US Economy: Spending On Hookers, Drugs And Booze Tumbles

When it comes to the US economy, there is overall consumer spending, and then there is spending on vices – a true leading indicator of overall consumer confidence and discretionary spending as Americans generally won’t splurge on hookers, blackjack and blow until they are absolutely positive they won’t need the cash for something else. Conveniently SouthBay Research  has a “Vice Index” that that tracks spending on gambling, alcohol, drugs, and prostitution. And as of February, the vice index just tumbled, suggesting that after a brief burst in late 2017 and 2018, the consumer-driven economy is again in trouble.

Or, as SouthBay’s Andrew Zatlin writes, the “Vice Index Points to Tax Cut Hangover: Slower Pace of Consumer Spending for 1Q

Shown below is SouthBay’s proprietary Vice Index (lagged by 6 months) which tumbled in February to -2%, its worst print since 2012.

 

Here is the same Vice Index shown unlagged: it shows that the impact of the Trump tax Cut was “Short but Sweet”, and ominous warning for the broader economy.

As Southbay notes, unlagged the Vice Index reflects two recent major swings:

  1. The 2016 Reflation: The US and global economies rebounded in late 2016 with a firming up of oil and materials prices, as well as the Trump election.  As a function of its leading indicator qualities, the Vice Index began surging July 2016. 
  2. Trump tax Cut: The Trump tax overhaul was approved in December 2017 but consumers began spending before then.  Meanwhile the Vice Index began to surge October.

The point being that the Vice Index is a very reliable gauge of shifts in the economy as they impact consumer spending. And, as Zatlin writes, “it is pointing to a sharp down turn in consumer spending.  As if the Tax cut never happened.” It’s very possible that the pace of spending will pick up over the year.  But first some household financial healing needs to take place.

Some further observations from SouthBay Research on the state of the US consumer:

Personal Consumption Shows Household Financial Stress

Why would the Vice Index point to a looming pullback in the pace of consumer spending? Here’s a snapshot of Household finances

Coming into January

  • Spending outpaced incomes by $133B
  • Savings had dropped (-$148B)

But January saw a $106B one-month jump in disposable income thanks to

  • a 2% jump in cost of living adjustments to Government benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security)
  • a drop in taxes (taxes fell -3.3% from December to January)

That’s a ‘permanent’ 5.3% jump in disposable income.

Financial healing first, spending next

  • Consumers pre-spent a lot of the Trump tax cut: In anticipation of the tax cut, Households went on a spending spree.  You can see that in the pace and timing of the drop in savings: a little drop in September (when the tax cut seemed likely) and a bigger drop in November when the cut was agreed.  Consumers were spending ahead of the expected savings.
  • Spending actually slowed in January: In the 2H 2017, PCE averaged $60B+ per month.  In January it was half or $31B.  In fact, of the January $106B gain, all but $5B went to savings.
  • Watch the cost of debt: Since September, more debt and higher rates has driven interest rate payments up $22B (a 7% growth)

* * *

Here’s what to expect according to Zatlin:

  • 1Q: Relatively slow pace of retail spending.  There’s a consumer hangover as savings get repaired and the big holiday bills get paid.
  • 2Q: Spending resumes.  By April, US households will be enjoying tax rebates and also factoring in the additional $100B per month from lower taxes and COLA.  Higher interest rates and inflation will nibble away at some of this will boost spending.  Spending to pick up in 2Q.  It’s a consumer hangover following the First the savings hole must be re-filled.  Then the holiday spending bills must be re-paid.

Perhaps the spending rebound will take place as expected… but first have a chat with your friendly, neighborhood drug dealer: when it comes to spending trends and inflection points in the US, he just may have the most valuable information.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2I3NUkD Tyler Durden

Ukraine Freezes After Russia Halts Gas Deliveries

Last week, Russia’s state-run gas giant and quasi-monopolist when it comes to European natgas supplies, Gazprom, announced it would not start shipments of natural gas to Ukraine’s Naftogaz starting March 1 after the two sides failed to reach an agreement.

Russian gas deliveries to Ukraine were supposed to restart on Thursday following a foreign court ruling aimed at ending years of disputes between Kiev and Moscow, including two halts to Russian gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine. But Gazprom unexpectedly refused to resume deliveries, returning the prepayment for supplies made by Kiev, claiming amendments to a contract had not been completed.

The decision came as the sides reportedly failed to extend a supplemental agreement to the current gas contract, RT reported.

“So far, the supplemental agreement to the operating contract with Naftogaz has not been approved, and that is a compulsory condition for launching the shipments,” Medvedev told reporters. “So, we have to recover the amount paid by the company in full. And it is obvious that the shipments in March won’t start.”

In response, Ukraine’s state monopoly said that Gazprom had failed to deliver prepaid gas. Naftogaz is reportedly planning to claim damages for supply failure from the Russian energy major.

And while the long-running dispute may, but certainly won’t, be resolved in court, Ukraine has suddenly found itself without heat and on Friday urged schools to close and factories to cut production, while residents shivered as the country strained to save on gas supplies.

The decision coincided with freezing temperatures all over Ukraine, and the government called on Friday for measures to reduce consumption.

Starting today, we recommended … to stop the work of kindergartens, schools and universities,” Ukraine energy minister Igor Nasalyk told lawmakers, while urging Ukrainian companies to adjust their operations to save gas, while power companies were ordered to switch to fuel oil where possible.

Nasalyk said these savings measures would be in effect until Tuesday, when temperatures are expected to rise.

*  *  *

Meanwhile, on Friday, Gazprom director Alexei Miller said that the company would immediately turn to the Stockholm arbitration court to break its contract with the Ukrainian operator Naftogaz, Russian news agencies reported. A ruling by the same court last year was meant to halt disputes over gas prices and shipments, which had often been a proxy for political disputes between Moscow and Kiev. The court set a price and ordered Kiev to resume purchases it had cancelled following the breakout in “proxy” violence between the two nations in 2014.

Also on Friday, Naftogaz said that Gazprom had not only refused to resume deliveries meant for it, but lowered the pressure in gas pipelines by 20 percent and minimized sales to other customers. In a statement, Naftogaz said that Gazprom was trying to portray Ukraine in a negative light and suggest that it was willing either to let its own population freeze or make it out to be “an unreliable transit company that takes the gas away” from European countries.

In response, Reuters reported today that Gazprom said there had so far been no impact on supplies through its pipelines to Europe, despite the sharp escalation in tensions between the two countries.

Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak told European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcofic in a phone conversation that gas transit would not be at risk until Gazprom and Naftogaz fully terminated their agreement.

“Minister Novak assured that the gas transit from Russia to Europe is under no threat. The transit remains as reliable as in the past,” the ministry said.

* * *

Kiev and Moscow have a history of clashing over prices and obligations under contracts for the delivery of Russian gas to Ukraine as well as transit to Europe. The standoff in the winter of 2006 triggered supply disruptions, with Russia accusing Ukraine of stealing gas intended for the European market.

The gas giants are currently involved in a long-standing litigation over the terms of the current delivery contract. Ukraine’s lawyers are struggling for annulment of the so-called take-or-pay provision that obliges Kiev to purchase a minimum annual quantity of gas. Earlier this week, Naftogaz claimed it had won a $2.56 billion victory in another round of its legal battle with Gazprom.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2tgUgdf Tyler Durden

Millennials And Their Scary Support Of Socialism & Communism

Authored by Alex Deluce via GoldTelegraph.com,

According to the latest findings from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, 50 percent of today’s American millennials view socialism or communism as the ideal political ideology. Half of them have found their heroes in dictators such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong. Lenin, Che, and Kim Jong Un.

The country that grew into the wealthiest on earth through capitalism is showing alarming signs of turning away from its roots.

Much of this trend is due to historical illiteracy and a failure to teach an entire generation about the destruction that have been perpetrated by previous communist regimes. At the same time, they are uninformed about the failures and desperations experienced in current communist countries, such as Venezuela and Cuba. Today’s millennials are hard-pressed to even define socialism and communism. They feel at odds with capitalism and simply feel any alternative would be better, although many haven’t started working or become a part of the workforce thanks to the pro wall street policies practiced by the Federal Reserve.

One of the lures of socialism is the same one proselytized by Karl Marx: the division of wealth. High earners and inherited wealth are seen as unfairly depriving the rest the population of their “fair share,” although most millennials are unable to elaborate clearly on the concept. A mere third of millennials can even correctly define socialism. Only half can identify capitalism as the free market economic system that lured millions of their ancestors to American shores.

For those who thought the Cold War is at an end, these trends are a disturbing wakeup call. This time, however, the chill is not across the Atlantic. Socialism is on the rise as a threat to America, but the threat is coming from America’s own newest generation of voters, who weren’t even born when the Berlin Wall magnificently collapsed to the cheer of millions. They were, ironically, raised during one of history’s most prosperous periods while being indoctrinated into ideologies their grandparents died to obliterate.

Socialism is no longer seen as a threat. Instead, the once-feared ideology is now being celebrated as “cool.” In certain circles, it carries an automatic claim to virtue. And millennials are being fed the joys of socialism on a daily basis by an increasingly left-leaning media. It was a like-minded media that praised Lenin’s implementation of communism as a “noble ideal.” Politically, we may have come full circle in less than 100 years.

Many Americans feel the need for an educational system that teaches the actual consequences of communism and the economic possibilities provided by capitalism. If this does not happen, they fear that the realities of a classless society may become all too real.

Donald Trump’s election to the American presidency has underscored the media bias toward socialism and liberalism, while freedom and capitalism are being covered in increasingly dark and negative terms. Journalists no longer feel compelled to report facts. Instead, opinions, no matter how inaccurate, passes for journalism. And these opinions are being eagerly absorbed by the millennial generation seeking so-called “safe spaces.” While the actual definition may not be clearly defined, space spaces seems to be any place where capitalism is not. Close to half of millennials state they want to live in a socialist country, safely protected from the freedoms and obligations of the First Amendment. Yet thanks to our educational system, these same millennials are unable to define either socialism, communism, or capitalism correctly.

Communist regimes have risen by the dozen since Lenin’s marched into Moscow. And they have collapsed in almost equal numbers. Only a few struggling and starving Communist countries are still hanging on by a fraying thread, oblivious to the misery of their masses.

If our schools were anxious to explain the truth about communism, they would teach that:

  1. Communism thwarts creativity and personal ambition. The individual is merely a part of the whole.

  2. Both Russian and China endured starvation and the death of more than 40 million citizens through forced collectivization after the government nationalized small farms. Forced redistribution of property is an integral part of Marx’s Manifesto.

  3. The millennials’ much vaunted quest for “equality” translates into equal poverty for all. Under socialism, there are no incentives to work and prosper. Revolts by a more ambitious segment of communist populations have brought down several regimes, including Russia.

  4. The proven success of capitalism is a threat to communist regimes, some of which would readily act to destroy America. Some millennials actually welcome the idea.

  5. The lack of incentive to actual work causes inefficiency at all levels of government, including the ruin of ecologically critical land and waters.

  6. The millennials’ argument against capitalist monopolies ignores the fact the under socialism and communist, there is only one monopoly – the government.

  7. While Marx’s argument for class struggle may have had an iota of validity in an age when people were ruled by the whim of dictatorial royals, it is capitalism that has made a strong middle class possible, thus erasing the lines between upper and lower classes. Today’s remaining communist countries have only two classes: a small but powerful ruling class and the remaining, poor populace. The absolute elitism decried by Marxists can only grow in a Marxist society.

  8. Communist regimes require absolute obedience. At least 80 million people have been killed since the early 20th century to keep alive the myth of a viable communist or socialist state.

Sadly, the millennial generation is mostly unaware and indifferent to the above facts. And our schools and liberal media are serving as greater advocates for socialism than Karl Marx was ever able to. He lacked capitalism’s innate belief in freedom of the press, as well as the innovations capitalism made possible to disseminate news and information to all interested citizens.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2FdzTmw Tyler Durden

Liberty Links 3/3/18 – Stop Blaming Russian Bots For Everything

If you appreciate my work and want to contribute to independent media, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit the Support Page.

Top Links

Stop Blaming Russian Bots For Everything (The Russian bot narrative is total bs, Buzzfeed)

Bernie Sanders Wants Congress to End U.S. Support for Yemen War. Saudi Lobbyists Fought Similar Measure Last Year.(Must read on how corrupt D.C. is, The Intercept)

Consumers Are Revolting Against Animal Cruelty — So the Poultry Industry Is Lobbying for Laws to Force Stores to Sell Their Eggs (Total lunacy, The Intercept)

Debt-Conscious Millennials Are a Threat to Credit Cards (Buy Bitcoin, avoid credit cards. I like these youngsters, Bloomberg)

Kushner’s Family Business Received Loans After White House Meetings (Princeling’s in some hot water, The New York Times)

Mnuchin Says Trump ‘Willing’ to Negotiate U.S. Return to TPP (It’s baaack, Bloomberg)

The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence (Forbes)

This Big Cryptocurrency Acquisition Could Create a Wall Street-Style Financial Giant (Fortune)

Amazon Is Now Earning Money from the Pentagon (Nextgov)

The U.S. Empire Is Acting Like A Desperate, Cornered Animal, Because That’s What It Is (Caitlin Johnston, Medium)

The New York Times Fired My Doppelgänger (What happened to Quinn Norton is fascinating and disturbing, The Atlantic)

U.S. Politics/News

See More Links »

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2H1zNLi
via IFTTT

The Navy’s Next High-Tech Laser For Warships Wants To Blow Drones Out Of The Sky

The High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS) system will be the first Department of Defense (DOD) contract to mount an integrated laser weapon system onto a warship with fixed price options for additional units.

Artist’s concept of the Lockheed Martin HELIOS in action(Credit: Lockheed Martin)

The United States Navy awarded Lockheed Martin a $150 million contract, with options for an additional $942.8 million, to develop and manufacture two high power HELIOS systems to integrate with destroyers by 2020, detailed a Lockheed Martin press release on March 01.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR)-sponsored Laser Weapon System (LaWS) while deployed to the Arabian Gulf. Image: U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams/Wikimedia Commons

“The HELIOS program is the first of its kind, and brings together laser weapon, long-range ISR and counter-UAS capabilities, dramatically increasing the situational awareness and layered defense options available to the U.S. Navy,” said Michele Evans, vice president and general manager of Integrated Warfare Systems and Sensors.

“This is a true system of capabilities, and we’re honored the Navy trusted Lockheed Martin to be a part of fielding these robust systems to the fleet,” she added.

Watch the United States Navy combat laser mounted on a warship annihilate UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and small boat threats with precision:

According to Lockheed Martin, the HELIOS combines three key systems, unified together in the ultimate war machine:

  • A high-energy laser system: The high-energy fiber laser will be designed to counter unmanned aerial systems and small boats. The energy and thermal management system will leverage Lockheed Martin experience on Department of Defense programs, and the cooling system will be designed for maximum adaptability onboard ships. In addition, Lockheed Martin will bring decades of shipboard integration experience, reducing risk and increasing reliability.

  • A long-range ISR capability: HELIOS sensors will be part of an integrated weapon system, designed to provide decision-makers with maximum access to information. HELIOS data will be available on the Lockheed Martin-led Aegis Combat System.

  • A counter-UAS dazzler capability: The HELIOS dazzler will be designed to obscure adversarial UAS-based ISR capabilities.

The contract calls for two HELIOS by the fiscal year 2020. Lockheed Martin projects the first unit will deliver “for shipboard integration on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, and one unit will be used for land testing at White Sands Missile Range.”

Laser weapon mounted on US Navy ship (file photo)

The deployment of the HELIOS integration on a warship represents “a watershed moment for directed energy,” Rob Afzal, a Lockheed Martin senior fellow of laser weapon systems, told reporters.

“Laser weapons systems have been desired for decades. One of the missing pieces to actually deploying laser weapons was that we didn’t actually have a laser that was powerful enough and small enough and efficient enough.”

“Lockheed Martin’s spectral beam combined fiber lasers bring flexibility and adaptability to defensive and offensive missions. Our design is scalable, and we can optimize it to meet requirements for future increments,” he added.

Bloomberg describes the HELIOS project as a major step forward in laser weapon development, but acknowledges non-integrated laser weapon systems have been mounted on war machines in the past:

While Helios is a major step toward laser combat, it’s by no means the first. A year ago, Lockheed delivered a laser weapon to the Army for installation on a truck as part of a $25 million contract. In November, the Air Force Research Lab gave the company $26 million to develop a high-energy laser to test on a fighter jet by 2021. The Navy tested a 30-kilowatt laser system aboard the USS Ponce in late 2014. That laser was on the ship but not integrated into its systems, as is expected for the Helios weapon. Raytheon Co. has gotten into the game with a tactical vehicle and dune buggy.

Raytheon is helping to develop a laser weapRaytheonon small and rugged enough to be mounted on a tactical ground vehicle. Illustration: Raytheon

“This high-energy laser technology is suitable for applications from land, air and sea,” Afzal said, predicting smaller, more powerful lasers. “It’s not just a one-mission capability.”

Nevertheless, the Department of Defense is planning for decades of hybrid wars across multiple domains — space, cyberspace, air, land, and, maritime. In doing so, the DOD is racing towards the integration of laser-powered weapon systems on warships.

We must ask the question — why?

As we found out on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin used his state-of-the-nation speech to warn the United States that Russia possesses hypersonic technologies that can render NATO’s U.S.-led missile defense system completely “useless.” Perhaps, we are starting to get the understanding how the next war will be fought: lasers and hypersonic weapons.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2oCMNQX Tyler Durden

Jim Rickards: “Now, A Trade War – Next, A Shooting War”

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

A popular thesis since the 1930s is that a natural progression exists from currency wars to trade wars to shooting wars. Both history and analysis support this thesis.

Currency wars do not exist all the time; they arise under certain conditions and persist until there is either systemic reform or systemic collapse. The conditions that give rise to currency wars are too much debt and too little growth.

In those circumstances, countries try to steal growth from trading partners by cheapening their currencies to promote exports and create export-related jobs.

The problem with currency wars is that they are zero-sum or negative-sum games. It is true that countries can obtain short-term relief by cheapening their currencies, but sooner than later, their trading partners also cheapen their currencies to regain the export advantage.

This process of tit-for-tat devaluations feeds on itself with the pendulum of short-term trade advantage swinging back and forth and no one getting any further ahead.

After a few years, the futility of currency wars becomes apparent, and countries resort to trade wars. This consists of punitive tariffs, export subsidies and nontariff barriers to trade.

The dynamic is the same as in a currency war. The first country to impose tariffs gets a short-term advantage, but retaliation is not long in coming and the initial advantage is eliminated as trading partners impose tariffs in response.

Despite the illusion of short-term advantage, in the long-run everyone is worse off. The original condition of too much debt and too little growth never goes away.

Finally, tensions rise, rival blocs are formed and a shooting war begins. The shooting wars often have a not-so-hidden economic grievance or rationale behind them.

The sequence in the early 20th century began with a currency war that started in Weimar Germany with a hyperinflation (1921–23) and then extended through a French devaluation (1925), a U.K. devaluation (1931), a U.S. devaluation (1933) and another French/U.K. devaluation (1936).

Meanwhile, a global trade war emerged after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (1930) and comparable tariffs of trading partners of the U.S.

Finally, a shooting war progressed with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931), the Japanese invasion of Beijing and China (1937), the German invasion of Poland (1939) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941).

Eventually, the world was engulfed in the flames of World War II, and the international monetary system came to a complete collapse until the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.

Is this pattern repressing itself today?

Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.

The new currency war began in January 2010 with efforts of the Obama administration to promote U.S. growth with a weak dollar. By August 2011, the U.S. dollar reached an all-time low on the Fed’s broad real index.

Other nations retaliated, and the period of the “cheap dollar” was followed by the “cheap euro” and “cheap yuan” after 2012.

Once again, currency wars proved to be a dead end.

Now the trade wars have begun. On Thursday, July 27, the U.S. Congress passed one of the toughest economic sanctions bills ever against Russia.

This law provided that U.S. companies may not participate in Russian efforts to explore for oil and gas in the Arctic. But it went further and said that even foreign companies that do business with Russia in Arctic exploration will be banned from U.S. markets and U.S. contracts.

These new sanctions pose an existential threat to Russia because depends heavily on oil and gas revenue to propel its economy.

Russia has vowed to retaliate.

Meanwhile, the long-expected trade war with China has begun at last. This is a trade war that President Trump threatened the entire time while he was on the campaign trail. Yet after Trump was sworn in as president he did nothing about Chinese trade and currency practices.

Trump did not declare China a “currency manipulator” and did not impose tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum being dumped on U.S. and world markets.

The reason Trump did not act swiftly was because he wanted China’s help facing North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs. If China would put pressure on North Korea, Trump would go easy on China.

But China did not hold up their end. China has done nothing to change North Korea’s behavior and will not do so in the future. Now Trump has no reason to hold back.

On Monday, Jan. 22, President Trump announced steep 30% U.S. tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines.

The tariffs were not aimed at China alone, but China is by far the largest source of solar panels shipped to the U.S., and one of the largest sources of washing machines.

So while Trump can claim that these tariffs were not specifically targeted at China, that is exactly what they were.

After Trump announced the tariffs on solar panels and washing machines. the Chinese Commerce Ministry expressed “strong dissatisfaction” and said it “aggravates the global trade environment.”

Now yesterday, the Trump administration announced plans to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. The plan slaps a 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminum. While the tariffs are expected to apply to all countries, China was certainly a strong consideration. Trump plans to sign the trade measure next week and said they would be in effect “for a long period of time.”

Incidentally, the announcement came the same day when senior officials were scheduled to meet with China’s top economic adviser, Liu He.

I expect the U.S. will soon label China a currency manipulator, which will lead to still further sanctions. Like Russia, China will not take any of this lying down but will retaliate with its own sanctions, tariffs and bans on U.S. investment in China.

China leaked an announcement recently that the People’s Bank of China was considering allocating its reserves away from additional purchases of U.S. Treasury securities. That should be taken not as an immediate threat but as a shot across the bow indicating how China could retaliate for U.S. tariffs or other trade penalties.

Get ready for an all-out financial war between the U.S. and China.

Germany is also in the crosshairs because of its huge trade surplus. Trump has already torn up the TPP trade agreement and has put Canada, Mexico and South Korea on notice that their trade deals need to be renegotiated.

A full-scale trade war is now upon us. It will shake markets and be a major headwind for world growth. It will get ugly fast and the world economy will be collateral damage.

Today looks like a replay of the 1930s. As Mark Twain reputedly remarked, “History does not repeat, but it does rhyme.”

Next comes the shooting war with North Korea, which will inevitably draw in Russia, China, South Korea and Japan. This will be tantamount to World War III.

Now is a good time to reduce your allocation to stocks, increase your cash allocation to reduce volatility and increase your exposure to gold as a safe haven.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2oNS6vY Tyler Durden

SFPD Probes How Cops Fired 65 Shots At Murder Suspect… And Missed 65 Times

Ask any veteran cop who has been involved in a “running gun battle” about their experience and the first thing they’ll inevitably bring up is how unpredictable these types of shootouts can be.

What they won’t tell you – at least not right away – is how the pursuing officers, in many cases, will unload dozens of rounds of ammunition, inflicting massive amounts of collateral damage, often without hitting the fleeing suspect.

Sometimes, an officer will get hit. And sometimes, officers or the suspect will tag an innocent bystander, like they did during a shootout on a quiet neighborhood street in Westchester back in September 2015.

Screen Shot

Other times, bullets fly in every direction, ripping through windshields and terrifying bystanders, until the suspect gives up – or escapes, according to KQED News.

In one recent incident that unfolded in San Francisco’s Design District about two weeks ago, a shootout erupted when officers cornered a murder suspect who had eluded them earlier that day. The suspect, identified as Joel Armstrong, was discovered after officers discovered a car that had been stolen earlier that day, which they believed belonged to the suspect in a double shooting where one victim later succumbed to his wounds. Police had linked the carjacking and the shootings to the same suspect, and when an officer went to investigate the stolen car, he discovered Armstrong hiding in a nearby RV.

An officer “peered into a window of the RV” and saw Armstrong, according to the Police Department’s description of the incident. One of seven body-camera videos released by the Police Department shows an officer rush back to his colleagues after looking in the window.

“Hey, we got him! We got him,” the officer says. “He’s in there! He’s in there!”

Body camera footage shows seven officers surrounding Armstrong. First, the officers ordered the other occupants of the RV out of the vehicle. Three people and a large dog emerged, and officers ordered them to stand down.

All of a sudden, two shots rang out from inside the RV – and the officers scrambled for cover. One officer fell, another tripped over the officer that fell.

Officers unleashed a ten second burst of handgun and assault rifle fire at the RV. In total, 65 shots were fired. None of them touched Armstrong.

He eventually surrendered after a couple of hours, leaving the RV at 2:15 am ET.

He’s charged with murder, eight counts of attempted murder, carjacking, being a felon in possession of a firearm, discharge of a firearm and receiving stolen property, according to the Police Department.

Unsurprisingly, San Francisco homicide and internal affairs teams are investigating the incident. The local district attorney’s office and the department of police accountability are also investigating.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2Fd9Ckf Tyler Durden

Youth Unemployment: The Middle East’s Ticking Time-Bomb

Submitted by WorldView,

Highlights

  • With labor markets in the Middle East and North Africa swamped due to a baby boom, countries in the region will continue to face the acute challenge of massive youth unemployment.  

  • Though each state struggles with its own circumstances, most countries will face daunting hurdles as they try to build strong private sectors. 

  • Even if these states do foster more robust private sectors, they may not be able to mitigate the economic hardship when it hits their citizens, due to the uncontrollable nature of the free market. 

Earlier this month, Dubai hosted the World Government Summit, welcoming dignitaries from around the world for talks on global happiness. But amid all the discussions of more contented societies lurked a more pressing issue right on the Emiratis’ doorstep: the prospect that 5 million workers are set to enter the Middle East’s job market each year, even as gainful employment is in short supply. That, at least, was on the mind of Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, who once more exhorted Arab governments to address youth unemployment — and fast. No one was about to disagree. From Morocco to Iran, states and leaders of all sects, political systems and governing systems understand the threat posed by the region’s high youth unemployment. 

Although regional leaders agree on the need to increase employment, there is a good reason why youth unemployment remains stubbornly above the global average in the Middle East and North Africa. From building vibrant private sectors to finding the right jobs for youth to chasing technological silver bullets, many states have encountered hurdles in searching for a solution. Even if these countries do foster their private sectors and a technological boom, they will open themselves to market forces that they can scarcely control — a development that would challenge their already-strained social contracts with their people. Countries in the region are not blessed with decades to solve the issue of youth employment, but if they fail to find a resolution soon, the survival of these states will come into question.

Slim Pickings for These Baby Boomers

The Middle East and North Africa witnessed a baby bulge in the 1980s and 1990s, as infant mortality rates rapidly dropped in societies that are characterized by large families. From 1980 until 2000, the region’s population nearly doubled. Employment, however, failed to keep pace, and today the Middle East has the highest rate of youth unemployment in the world, according to the IMF, the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Regional economies failed to keep pace with the rate of population growth for a variety of reasons. Some countries, such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, experienced war, conflict and sanctions, but in places that did not suffer such degradations, youth unemployment rose inexorably. Whether rich or poor, Sunni or Shiite, Arab or non-Arab, Middle Eastern states report more young people searching for work with every passing year. Hampering the youth quest for jobs are a number of factors, including weak private sectors, mismatched skills and a regionwide overreliance on the public sector. But beyond these commonalities, geopolitical issues unique to each country have driven youth unemployment, as local constraints and local problems have all conspired against youth trying their luck in the job market. 

Maghreb Maladies

On the western edge of the region, the former French colonies of the Maghreb — Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco — struggle with unemployment rates that run close to 30 percent. For Tunis and Rabat, the problem stems from a lack of high-value natural resources. 

Tunisia’s pleasant climate benefited inhabitants in an ancient, agricultural era. Today, however, the country’s agricultural sector does not yield enough income to provide jobs for most of its people. Instead, Tunisia is forced to rely on the low-wage, low-skilled tourist sector for much of its national employment. Moreover, the country also suffers from underemployment, as a robust education sector has produced many skilled graduates, but there are few jobs to match their skill sets. At the same time, a small coterie of elites continues to syphon off national wealth through corruption.

Morocco, meanwhile, mines phosphorus but that — along with its limited connections to Europe’s common market — does not provide enough income to ensure development at the speed necessary for youth job creation. 

Algeria suffers from fewer resource constraints thanks to its abundance of hydrocarbon reserves, but the country has failed to fulfill its energy potential. The state has driven a hard bargain in negotiations with foreign energy companies in an effort to extract the most possible income, but the tactics have slowed the sector’s growth because they have dissuaded investment, harming employment rates.

In addition, all three suffer from a French colonial legacy of strong civil societies — which would nominally be an asset for stability, because they provide representation for people with grievances. Such groups, however, frequently slow the reforms that are prerequisites for revitalizing the private sector. When countries in the Maghreb propose austerity cuts, tax increases or public sector salary cuts to improve their competitiveness, they can face pushback in the form of strikes or other civil action.

Algiers’ actions during the Arab Spring highlighted these issues. Amid the global economic crunch, the overthrow of the government in neighboring Tunisia and worries about its own stability, Algeria’s government opened the doors to the public sector, doubling how much it spent on civil servants’ wages from 2009 to 2011. The action helped maintain calm on the streets but hurt the country’s budgets in the long term. Government spending has yet to return to pre-Arab Spring levels, even as the country’s critical energy sector brings in even less oil revenue. Now, Algeria is grappling with the aftereffects of a strategy that solved problems yesterday but gave little thought to today. 

The Armies With Their Hands in the Pie

For Egypt, the problem is not just a lack of resources — the recent discovery of the massive Zohr gas field notwithstanding — but a large, urbanized population, a bloated public sector and an economy that is corrupt and dominated by the military. 

The country’s population of 95 million has almost doubled since 1990, crowding ever more people into cities with poor infrastructure and few jobs besides the low-wage tourist sector. Citizens endure enough problems just finding clean water and affordable food, let alone jobs that can offer them the accoutrements of middle-class life. Unsurprisingly, the jobless rate for youth exceeds 30 percent.

Graft is also rife in Egypt due to years of military domination over large parts of the economy, and that corruption saps national wealth, which could provide more jobs, away from the private sector. The 2011 revolution did not dislodge the military from its paramount position in these businesses, which help divert wealth to these corrupt networks. Layers of regulation additionally protect these sectors and networks from competition.

Furthermore, Egypt’s domineering public sector provides the bedrock of the state’s political legitimacy. Public sector jobs direct talent away from the private sector and into often unproductive jobs. Those positions are usually created not to conduct functions of state but to buy loyalty to the regime. They also drain national wealth because workers strongly resist pay cuts. 

Cairo has registered some success in its attempts to increase competitiveness — at least in 2017. But with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi too dependent on military support for his power, it is unlikely that the authorities will roll back army control over much of the economy to implement greater reforms.

Military cronyism also hampers the economy in Iran, where the youth employment rate is 30 percent. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a powerful presence in the economy, but other elites within the Islamic republic, including the supreme leader’s office, have accumulated assets over the years, diverting resources and distorting economic incentives. Perhaps a bigger problem for Iran, however, is a brain drain that has left the the country devoid of its best and brightest. Iran’s universities have robust engineering and mathematics programs, but many of its graduates seek work and study opportunities abroad. As a result, Iran foots the bill for the education of such youth but enjoys no dividends from its investment.

The Gulf Between Public and Private

In contrast, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are neither resource-poor, like the Maghreb, nor overpopulated, like Egypt. Their systems of government are authoritarian, yet there are no military networks gobbling up whole sections of the economy, as in Iran and Egypt. Many GCC states even have many jobs to offer nationals, yet the youth unemployment rate runs to nearly 30 percent in many of the countries. Young people in the Gulf frequently opt for comfortable employment in the public sector rather than seek work in the more demanding private sector. On top of that, the education systems in many GCC countries teach few of the skills private sector employers desire in a potential hire.

To consolidate their legitimacy, Gulf Arab states have relied on their hydrocarbon wealth to build large public sectors that are becoming increasingly expensive and unproductive with their offers of cushy jobs. Now, states in the region are struggling to push their youth toward the private sector despite a preponderance of jobs in the industry, with some eschewing the available private sector jobs in favor of remaining unemployed until a public sector job opens up. Ultimately, generous social safety nets inadvertently remove the incentives for Gulf Arabs to look for immediate work. 

GCC members have each set targets to increase the number of nationals working in the private sector, but countries have often reneged on pledges to champion private industry instead of the oversized public sector. As part of a continuing drive to increase the number of Emiratis working in the private sector, the United Arab Emirates’ federal government recently froze public sector salaries for 2018 — only for the ruler of Sharjah to give employees in his emirate a raise anyway. 

Similarly, Saudi Arabia has been seeking to cut its subsidies and improve its tax base. The kingdom implemented a value-added tax in January to improve the country’s overall budget situation, but after members of the public expressed fears that it would lower the standard of living, Riyadh rolled out a Citizen Account Program to soften the impact for poorer Saudis. In February alone, the program transferred $587 million to citizens. 

Letting Go of Control 

In their bid to find jobs for their youth, many Middle Eastern and North African states are confronted with challenges that will be difficult to overcome. Some are leaning on technology to provide a pathway forward, especially Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Others, such as Egypt, are resorting to international institutions such as the IMF to help them implement the necessary structural changes. Yet a desire to produce modern, vibrant private sectors unifies them all.

The drive for such a private sector, however, presents a risk to many states. Private sectors have a tendency to crash, experience recessions and produce hardship as part of their natural economic cycles. Many Middle Eastern states have strived to mitigate hardship for decades as part of their social contracts with their people, but by embracing stronger private sectors, governments invite the risk that they will fail to manage the difficulties inherent in the inevitable downturns. 

This desire to prevent hardship is already playing out in the battle over subsidies across the region. States with economies as diverse as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are all trying to maintain a fine balance as they fight to reduce budget-draining subsidies and avoid a backlash from societies that have become accustomed to them.

Bigger private sectors connected to the global markets may also alter other expectations for governments, especially when recessions occur. Instead of counting on unified public support for further subsidies during hard times, states could face hostility from entrepreneurs and private sector leaders, making it difficult to mitigate a recession for the population through public spending or new subsidies. Even if they embark on spending sprees to bolster employment, the lag between the beginning of a recession and the response from the government could anger citizens, obliging them to endure recessions that impose austerity with little warning. And if states cannot learn how to absorb such social stress, they risk fomenting the unrest that has racked other austerity-riven countries, such as Greece. 

If these states fail to provide the jobs their youth want or need, young people could turn to more extreme ideologies for answers. Religious militants will find plenty of recruits within the ranks of the unemployed, as they always have. Terrorism alone, however, is not the only threat. Some states, such as Saudi Arabia, are actively encouraging a more open society to try to entice investors, tap into the potential of their female workforce and inculcate a culture that lends itself to innovation and creativity. But if openness does not beget prosperity, the hard-line conservatives who have long argued that salvation lies not within the pocketbook but in holy texts may gain the political upper hand, allowing them to sideline reformists. 

Right now, there is little appetite in the Middle East and North Africa for a repeat of the Arab Spring. But over the next decade, the demands for change will grow if no solution is found to the problems of unemployment among the 5 million youth who will enter the labor market this year. As the jobless suffer through year after year of poor work prospects, they will question the economic and political systems that have endlessly promised solutions yet failed to deliver an acceptable standard of living. Inevitably, a lack of solutions will foment protests and, potentially in turn, insurrection. With time running out for a solution, revolution might become the youth’s biggest employer in the not-too-distant future.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2FQqgYe Tyler Durden