Month: May 2016

Submitted by Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

Showdown! In Leaked Letter IMF Tells Germany “Debt Relief For Greece Or IMF Drops Out”

It’s showdown time.

The IMF has threatened it will pull out of the Greek bailout program unless Greece gets debt relief.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Austria, Finland, and the other Eurozone creditors will not like today’s development one bit.

 

Showdown!

Please consider IMF Tells Eurozone to Start Greek Debt Talks.

The International Monetary Fund has told eurozone finance ministers they must immediately begin negotiations to grant debt relief for Greece despite German opposition, upending carefully orchestrated negotiations ahead of an emergency meeting on Monday.

 

In a letter to all 19 ministers sent on Thursday night and obtained by the Financial Times, Christine Lagarde, the IMF chief, said stalemated talks with Athens to find €3bn in “contingency” budget cuts, which have gone on for a month, had become fruitless and that debt relief must be put on the table immediately, or risk losing IMF participation in the programme.

 

Athens is facing €3.5bn in debt payments in July that it needs bailout aid to pay, and EU officials have told Greek government officials they do not want messy negotiations to continue during the Brexit campaign — meaning if no agreement is reached this month, leaders will not begin discussions again until just weeks before a possible default.

 

Similar last-minute talks a year ago rattled the Greek economy and raised questions about whether Greece could be ejected from the eurozone.

 

Relations between the IMF and Athens, already strained after last year’s brinkmanship, have reached a new low in recent weeks following WikiLeaks’ publication of a transcript of a private teleconference between Mr Thomsen and other IMF officials — a transcript Greek officials claimed showed the IMF was negotiating in bad faith.

 

Ms Lagarde stuck by the IMF’s assessment that such reforms would only produce a primary surplus of 1.5 per cent in 2018 — not the 3.5 per cent the EU has mandated.

 

“We do not believe that it will be possible to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP primary surplus by relying on hiking already high taxes levied on a narrow base, cutting excessively discretionary spending, and counting one-off measures as has been proposed in recent weeks.”

Leaked Letter

Dear minister:

 

Program discussions between Greece and the institutions have made progress in recent weeks, but significant gaps remain to be bridged before an agreement can be reached that would include the IMF under one of our program facilities. I think it is time for me to clarify our position, and to explain the reasons why we believe that specific measures, debt restructuring, and financing must now be discussed simultaneously.

 

In particular, a clarification is needed to clear unfounded allegations that the IMF is being inflexible, calling for unnecessary new fiscal measures and – as a result – causing a delay in the negotiations and the disbursement of urgently needed funds.

 

First, together with the other institutions we have negotiated in good faith with our Greek partners on a package of fiscal measures yielding 2.5 per cent of GDP – close to being agreed – that will in our view be sufficient to reach a primary surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2018. Our assessment is based on realistic assumptions informed by Greece’s track record, the international environment, and the latest data released by Eurostat.

 

Second, this target falls short of what Greece promised its European partners in July last year – namely that it would achieve a primary surplus of 3.5 per cent of GDP in 2018. If the Eurogroup decided to hold Greece to this target, we could support an additional effort to temporarily reach this level, although it is higher than what we consider economically and socially sustainable in the long-run (see below).

 

However, let there be no doubt that meeting this higher target would not only be very difficult to reach, but possibly counterproductive. Greece’s fiscal adjustment has in the past fallen short of what was needed because of the lack of structural reforms underlying the adjustment effort. We do not believe that it will be possible to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP primary surplus by relying on hiking already high taxes levied on a narrow base, cutting excessively discretionary spending, and counting on one-off measures as has been proposed in recent weeks. The additional adjustment effort of 2 per cent of GDP would only be credible based on long overdue public sector reforms, notably of the pension and tax system.

 

Unfortunately, the contingency mechanism that Greece is proposing does not include such reforms. Instead, the authorities have offered to make short-term across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending – which has already been compressed to the point where the provision of public service is severely compromised – or transitory cuts in pension and wages not supported by fundamental parametric reforms. Based on past performance, such ad-hoc measures are not very credible, but they are also undesirable as they add to uncertainty and fail to resolve the underlying imbalances. I should also add that Greece has legislated a dozen contingency-type mechanisms in the past that have largely not worked.

 

Third, going forward, we do not expect Greece to be able to sustain a primary surplus of 3.5 per cent of GDP for decades to come. Only a few European countries have managed to do so, carried by a strong social consensus that is not in evidence in Athens. It would be unrealistic to expect future governments to resist pressure to relax fiscal policy over political cycles stretching far into the future. The recent experience – when first a center-right and then a center-left government quickly succumbed to easing pressures once a small primary surplus was achieved – should inform us against making such exceptional assumptions in the case of Greece. In our view, maintaining a primary surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP over the foreseeable future may be achievable in the context of a successful program and strong European budget surveillance for many years to come thereafter.

 

understand the urgency of the situation in the case of Greece and Europe as a whole, and our common objective is to quickly agree on a way forward. This requires compromises from all sides, and we have contributed our part by focusing conditionality on what we see as the absolute minimum, leaving important structural reforms to a later stage. However, for us to support Greece with a new IMF arrangement, it is essential that the financing and debt relief from Greece’s European partners are based on fiscal targets that are realistic because they are supported by credible measures to reach them. We insist on such assurances in all our programs, and we cannot deviate from this basic principle in the case of Greece. The IMF must apply the same standard to Greece as to other members of our institution.

 

Sincerely,

 

Christine Lagarde

Loaded Gun

I am uncertain if the emphasis in bold is by Lagarde or the Financial Times, but I suspect the latter.

This “purposely leaked” letter puts enormous pressure on German chancellor Angela Merkel who is already under severe strain due to her complete bungling of the refugee crisis.

Pick Your Poison

1. The German parliament only agreed to do this deal if the IMF was in it.
2. The Germany parliament only agreed to do this on the specific terms previously offered.

The terms included no more debt relief, Greece primary surplus (budget surplus not counting interest on debt) of 3% of GDP by 2018.

I said that would never happen and it won’t.

Lagarde’s letter stated “Third, going forward, we do not expect Greece to be able to sustain a primary surplus of 3.5 per cent of GDP for decades to come.”

By the way, Lagarde knew all along Greece could not meet a primary surplus of 3.5% of GDP for decades to come. So, why did it sign the deal in the first place?

Lagarde now proposes a primary surplus of 1.5%.

Well guess what? That is nearly as unlikely as a surplus of 3.5%.

And at a rate of 1.5%, it will take decades longer for Greece to pay back the hundreds of billions of euros it owes in these programs.

So… that means outright debt reductions.

via http://ift.tt/1WPNS2d Tyler Durden

The world is disintegrating on every front – politically, environmentally, morally – and for the next generation, the future does not look promising. As we detailed previously, those coming of age today will face some of the greatest obstacles ever encountered by young people.  

They will find themselves overtaxed and struggling to find worthwhile employment in a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion. They will be the subjects of a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies and on guard against domestic acts of terrorism, blowback against military occupations in foreign lands. And they will find government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice. As such, they will find themselves forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences. And perhaps most crucially, their privacy will be eviscerated by the surveillance state.

It appears that day is drawing closer as PlanetFreeWill.com's Joseph Jankowski details, all over the United States, school districts have been implementing biometric identification technology for the purpose of allowing students to purchase lunch with no cash or card, and to track them getting on and off the school bus.

This technology has many worried that school districts are going to far with collecting personal information on students and are putting their privacy at risk.

 

In Illinois, the Geneva Unit District 304 has recently installed a biometric scanner in their cafeterias that will take student’s thumbprints for lunch purchases.

 

The biometric scanner, made by PushCoin Inc, will allow parents to closely monitor their children’s lunch accounts through email updates. Also, PushCoin’s CEO, Anna Lisznianski contends the scanners can help school officials use lunch time more efficiently, reports EAG news.

 

Officials in several area school districts have said they plan on implementing similar technology in the coming months and years.

 

“I will tell you that many of the kids aren’t very good about keeping track of their ID cards,” District 95 board President Doug Goldberg told the Daily Herald. “And so moving to biometrics was felt to be sort of the next generation of that individual, unique ID. We’ll record their thumbprints, there will be thumbprint readers at all the cash registers, and they’ll simply come by and — bang — hit their thumbprint. It makes it faster and, also, there’s a lot less opportunity for any kind of misuse or fraud when they’re using biometrics.”

 

Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the ACLU-Chicago, says that lunch line thumb scanners and other biometric data collection in schools sends the wrong message to students about protecting their privacy.

 

“I think it undermines the notion of really thinking about the importance of your biometrics as a matter of privacy,” Yohnka said. “I think in this age, when so much is available and so much is accessible online about us and there is all this information that floats out there, to begin to include in this one’s biometrics, it really does raise some legitimate concerns.”

 

Local law enforcement officials, for example, could subpoena fingerprints from a vendor like PushCoin to track down student criminals, Yohnka said.

 

University of Washington psychology professor Laura Kastner shares the same privacy concerns.

 

“At some point, Big Brother is going to have a lot of information on us and where is that going to go?” Kastner told the Daily Herald. “And that’s just for parents to consider. But from a kid point of view, they have no idea what they’re giving up and, once again, the slippery slope in what’s called habituation.”

 

“We’re getting so used to giving up data about ourselves,” Kastner said.

 

Along with privacy risks, this technology could be aiding in the acceptance of the obvious war on cash that is being waged globally.

 

With an entire generation of young people being acclimated to accept biometric identification technology, there is no telling no how far reaching this technology will go in the future and what it will collect.

As we concluded previously, with the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate. Computers now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks—all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

via http://ift.tt/1O4GTRB Tyler Durden

With blue lights flashing and a SWAT team in front of the warehouse, a black sedan pulled up. A man got out, popped the trunk, grabbed a briefcase and headed for Natalie Jewelry. Once there, the man was heard to say "I just need to drop off this gold and get a receipt. I need a receipt."

That's a first hand account of how gold was delivered to a Miami jewelry store by drug cartels, to later be melted down and sold for cash.

As Bloomberg reports, court documents from a federal court case in Chicago allege that El Chapo's Sinaloa drug cartel laundered tens of millions out of the U.S. not through secret shell companies wiring funds from bank to bank, but by simply buying gold and selling it.

Here's how the money laundering process allegedly worked. When the Sinaloa cartel needed to get the proceeds from its drug activities in the U.S. back to Mexico, it would first go buy up gold bars and other scrap gold pieces (sometimes silver as well) from jewelry stores and other businesses in the Chicago area. Then, the gold would be put into boxes, and under the name "Chicago Gold", or on occasion "Shopping Silver", would ship the boxes via FedEx to a company near Miami called Natalie Jewelry.

Once the gold arrived at Natalie Jewelry, the second leg of the operation was set in motion. The gold would then be sold to companies referred to as refineries, who melted down the gold. The refinery would take a commission, and send the rest of the proceeds back to Natalie Jewelry.

Now came the difficult part, which was getting the cash out of the country and into Mexico. This part of the operation called for a little bit more creativity, so the cartel set up a company in Mexico called De Mexico British Metal. De Mexico British Metal would invoice Natalie Jewelry, making it appear that it had sold the gold to them. Natalie Jewelry would in turn take their commission, and send the final proceeds to De Mexico British Metal.

The invoices made the entire transaction appear legitimate, and it worked for a period of time, as the cartel was able to launder an estimated $98 million using this process. However, the Department of Homeland Security eventually caught on to the scheme. "There was just way too much gold going through Miami" said retired DHS agent Lou Bock. The fact that U.S. customs records showed a large volume of gold being processed by a company in Miami, coupled with the fact that virtually no jewelry is made in Miami, made the agency very suspicious.

In January 2014, based on Customs reports showing discrepancies between the volume and value of gold processed by Natalie Jewelry, federal agents converged on the office located in an industrial park just north of Miami. They seized cash and hundreds of kilograms of gold and silver, along with documents linking the company to the Sinaloa cartel.

* * *

This incredible scheme has us wondering, with the move to banish cash from the system in order to "make it harder for the bad guys", how long until gold is also banned? What an incredibly convenient excuse to get gold out of circulation and under the direct control of the central planners.

“If I had a lot of money to launder, I would choose gold,” says John Cassara, a former U.S. Treasury special agent and author of books on money laundering. “There really isn’t anything else like it out there.” Once it’s melted down, the commodity’s origins are difficult to trace. It can quickly be converted to cash. Many of the companies that deal in gold aren’t held to the same compliance standards as banks.

via http://ift.tt/1We2LfQ Tyler Durden

Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

(Doug Casey updates readers about his take on the current crop of would-be presidents… and why he believes most Americans will vote for Trump. It was originally published on April 14th.)

 

It appears there are two candidates running from the left wing of the Demopublican Party (Hillary and Bernie), and two and a half from the right wing (Trump, Cruz, and Kasich). Note: The media identifies the Lefties by their first names, a friendly and personal thing, unlike the Righties.

I find it distasteful discussing current political figures. But since somebody new is going to be president come November, it makes sense to figure out who that might be, in order to insulate yourself as much as possible from the damage they’ll do.

Let me start by saying that this is not just the most entertaining election I’ve ever witnessed. But after the 1860 election, which Lincoln won with 40% of the popular vote (the remainder split between Stephen Douglas and two other candidates), I suspect it will also be the most divisive, hostile, and critical to the future of the country. Ever.

Why do I say that? Because the U.S. hasn’t been this unstable since the unpleasantness of 1861–1865.

The figures show that the average American’s standard of living has been dropping since about 1971. This is manifestly true relative to the rest of the world. But it’s also true in absolute terms, especially after you back out extraneous factors. For instance, today’s families usually need two breadwinners just to make ends meet. Huge amounts of debt have also helped disguise the decay. The situation is becoming critical with real unemployment closer to 20% than the official 5%. Interest rates are being held at zero to maintain unsupportable levels of debt.

But this isn’t the place for a full economic analysis of the Greater Depression. Let’s just say times are going to get very tough.

When times are tough, people vote for something new. That’s why, at the height of the 2008 crisis, the electorate chose Obama over John McCain. Aside from being old, hostile, and mildly demented, McCain was sure to continue on the then current and unsustainable economic path. Obama’s re-election in 2012 is explained by the fact things improved during his first term. That, and the Republican, Romney, was widely (and correctly) perceived as a politically wired beneficiary of the Deep State.

As you know, I believe we’re now leaving the eye of the great financial hurricane we entered in 2007. Even with (or in many ways because of) the trillions of dollars created over the last eight years, the average guy’s standard of living has continued falling.

People are now widely aware that the rich have been getting radically richer because of QE and ZIRP, and they resent it. Any further hardship occasioned as we go into the hurricane’s trailing edge will likely cause that resentment to become violent.

That accounts for the popularity of Trump and Sanders, but especially Trump. Let’s take a look at the candidates. But first, let’s look at the two dysfunctional wings of America’s Warfare/Welfare Party

The Two-Party Charade

I find there’s actually little to distinguish the Democrats and the Republicans, besides their rhetoric and the type of people who join them. In terms of what they do and the direction they steer the country, the differences are surprisingly marginal. The ethos of 300 million people has a life of its own; changing it is like turning a super tanker. But I suspect there’s a huge change afoot. The country itself is fragmenting.

There’s a good chance that, at a minimum, this election will destroy the Republican Party, no matter who they nominate. And will take the Democrats even further to the left.

Remember, there are essentially two types of freedom. Economic freedom (mainly how you can produce and own things) and social freedom (mainly what you can say and do regarding other people). The principal difference between the parties is that the Reps say they believe in economic freedom—which is a lie—while they definitely, and overtly, don’t believe in social freedom.

The Dems, on the other hand, say they believe in social freedom—which is a lie—while they definitely, and overtly, don’t believe in economic freedom. Pretty much the difference between Hitler and Stalin. And in the popular mind, Hitler was the devil incarnate, while Uncle Joe was only good bad, not evil.

The Dems, therefore, come off as morally superior. They claim to care about people, while the Reps appear to care mostly about things. The Dems are “progressive,” believing we should move toward collectivism and more State control, which they posit as good and fair and moral.

In contrast, the Reps don’t really believe in anything. In fact, they completely accept the Dems underlying premises. Their only real objection is the lefties are going too far too fast. So, of course they never have the moral and philosophical high ground and always come off looking like selfish hypocrites. The Republicans are the Stupid Party, and the Democrats are, in fact, the Evil Party.

At this point, the Republican Party is religious fundamentalists, social conservatives, and those who feel the government should spend even more on the bloated military congregate. Those who oppose foreign intervention and those who are friendly to free markets hang around its edges because there’s nowhere else for them to go; the Libertarian Party is laughably ineffectual, a non-starter. But the Republican party is not a natural or comfortable fit for them. The party should splinter. In fact, it will likely self-destruct if it doesn’t accept the nomination of Trump if he wins the popular vote. Which I believe he will.

The popularity of Sanders, who’s got the youth totally on his side and has won eight out of nine of the last caucuses and primaries, shows where the Democratic Party’s heart, and future, lies. But the Party machine won’t give him the nomination, which will increasingly reveal the Democratic Party as being very non-democratic.

With a little luck, this election will expose both parties as the corrupt machines that they are and destroy them both. But will the evil two party system be replaced by something even worse?

The Candidates

Let’s review them in decreasing order of disastrousness.

Sanders is a lifelong government employee (like Hillary, Cruz, and Kasich). The self-declared socialist is an economically ignorant, hostile, mildly demented old man—the Democrats answer to John McCain. He gets traction by pushing the envy button effectively.

This works in a world where many are not only ignorant of economics but have a distorted set of moral principles and no respect for property rights, while some others are cynically exploiting the system to become super wealthy. The machine approves of his basic principles, which are like Obama’s. But he’s probably just a bit too rabid to win a general election in 2016. Obama got in because, unlike Bernie, he seems so reasonable and nice.

I know the pundits believe Hillary will win the Dem nomination and then the election, but I don’t buy it. For one thing, she’s (correctly) seen as the Establishment personified. And in a time of widespread resentment—especially if we’re in the middle of a meltdown by November—that’s the kiss of death.

Assuming she’s not already indicted for any of a number of crimes. I’m not just talking about Benghazi and the email brouhaha, although some think that alone will sink her ship of state. Additionally, there are the persistent rumors of health issues. So, if neither Hillary nor Bernie gets the nod, who will it be? I expect the Dems will find a left wing general. Americans do love their military at the moment. Which is especially scary.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, he’ll draw attention to a long string of corruption that surrounds Hillary like a miasma, starting in 1978 with the $100,000 bribe disguised as cattle-trading profits. And her numerous friends and associates that have died suspicious deaths in years past, not the least of them Vince Foster and Ron Brown. And her abetting Bill’s sleazy rape episodes with lower-middle-class bimbos. And persistent rumors (which I tend to credit) that she’s an aggressive lesbian.

These things aren’t going to help her. Nor will the fact she’s a woman automatically help her with other women. To believe that is to believe that women are less perceptive than men. In fact, they tend to be shrewder at reading personalities. And Hillary’s personality traits scream “liar,” fraud,” and “dishonest.”

What about Cruz? His shifty, beady, squinty little eyes speak of duplicity. He seems to be a genuinely dislikable person, which itself is the kiss of death in an election. Elections, after all, have very little to do with ideology; they’re really just popularity/personality contests among the hoi polloi. He’s a borderline religious fanatic, a Christian version of the type of Muslim imams that really scare people. He’s a genuine warmonger. And his wife, an ex-Goldman partner, an ex-Condi Rice counselor, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is exactly the kind of Deep State person that voters are rejecting and despise. He may have beaten Trump in a few Heartland states with big fundamentalist populations, but even the tone deaf management of the Republican Party will see that he’s a complete non-starter in a general election.

Kasich? A lifelong politician, with nine terms as a congress critter, a stint as a governor, and one as a managing director of Lehman Brothers when it failed. These are the opposite of qualifiers in today’s world. He’s on the conventional statist side of almost every important issue—guns, global warming, drugs, medical care, and civil liberties. He’s about as dangerous as Hillary or Cruz when it comes to involving the U.S. in foreign adventures. He’s getting traction only because he seems low-key and “reasonable”—a Republican Obama. My guess is that the Deep State will try to give him the Rep nomination. After all, anyone but Trump…

So let’s look at Trump. I’m not a fan, per se, and I explained why at length here. But in October, I said I thought he was going to go all the way. I’ll explain why below. It’s not because I believe polls, or pundits, or keep my finger on the pulse of the capita censi (i.e., those who inhabit the ghettos, barrios, and trailer parks of the U.S.).

Why is Trump as popular as he is? Two reasons. First, he’s outspoken and politically incorrect. He doesn’t read from a script, like all the others. He says what his supporters are thinking, things that no other public figure is willing to say. Second, he’s not part of the Establishment, the Deep State. He’s the only candidate that’s not a professional politician. These are simple things but extremely important characteristics for this election, which is going to take place during a social and economic hurricane.

By the time November rolls around, however, three other qualities will come to the fore, and they’ll be even more important.

First, he’s a businessman, and therefore presumed to know how to make things work. People, at least those who aren’t Democrats, don’t want a politico. They know politicos are just about lies and self-dealing. What most people will want in the face of a collapsing economy is somebody who has credentials saying they’re competent to kiss things and make them better. A truth teller who says that the U.S. is in trouble and thinks markets are overpriced. Someone whose slogan is “Make America Great Again!”

Second, he projects certainty. In times of fear and confusion, which is what I expect in six months, certainty trumps everything in a public figure. No other candidate even comes close. A man who exudes certainty gets the confidence of voters.

Third, the Establishment hates him. Despite all the free press he gets, practically all pundits and public figures loathe him. They label him as an unqualified, irresponsible, dangerous clown and a reality show star. But since the general public now despises the Establishment in general and the media, in particular, this will help him, not hurt him.

P.S. Here’s Some Full Disclosure

You may be wondering, having said all this, if I will vote for Trump. The answer is: no. He’s an authoritarian, not a libertarian. He’s got only a marginal grip on either economic freedom or social freedom, and he says lots of stupid things that he may actually believe. That said, I still signed up for my friend Walter Block’s Libertarians for Trump movement. Why? Partly because he’s vastly less scary than any other candidate. And he’s certainly the least likely to start World War 3—which is actually the biggest risk with any president.

So why won’t I vote for him? Longtime subscribers are aware that I don’t choose to be complicit in crimes, including national elections. I give five reasons why you, too, should consider opting out. But I hope Trump wins. Not just because he’s actually the least warlike but because he’s the only candidate who’s not a puppet on a string. He stands a chance of upturning the Deep State’s apple cart and spilling all the rotten apples it carries. A small chance, perhaps, but probably the only chance.

Could he succeed in doing it? Unlikely, but it’s important someone try. He’d be no more likely to succeed than Ron Paul, if he’d won the last election. As I pointed out then, anyone who steps out of line would first get a sit-down with the heads of the praetorian agencies and a bunch of generals. They’d politely, but firmly, explain the way things work. Failing that, Congress would impeach him. Failing that, I expect he’d meet with an unfortunate accident.

In conclusion, you can put the Rolling Stone’s “Street Fighting Man” on continuous loop to replace the audio whenever you watch the news. I expect a long, hot, violent summer. That’s somewhat counterintuitive, in view of the fact that the American public is more apathetic than ever.

Apathy and ignorance. How else to explain their complacence at getting 0% on their savings? How better to explain that they’re more driven by fear than ever, evidenced by so many things, from the acceptance of “helicopter parenting,” to the bizarre hysteria over practically non-existent terrorism. Americans seem like zombies in many ways. Maybe that’s because something like 25% of the population are on medically prescribed psychoactives, like Ritalin, Prozac, Ambien, and scores of others. And even more are addicted to sugar, alcohol, overeating, recreational drugs, and Kardashian-style TV. Even so, as Ferguson, Missouri, proved last year, they’re still capable of rioting.

America, which was much more a concept than a place, is long gone. What’s left of the white middle class correctly feel they’re losing what’s left of the U.S. Their children are being both bankrupted and corrupted by politically correct schooling. To them, the society appears to have been captured by gender feminism, LGBT preferences, and racial quotas. And I’d say they’re basically right.

That’s why, even if they won’t admit it out loud, most Americans (hard-core Democrats excepted, of course), will vote for Trump.

Hold on to your hat.

via http://ift.tt/1YdS2je Tyler Durden

A spending survey done by MasterCard shows that March retail sales in Hong Kong declined at the worst rate in the history of the survey. According to the latest MasterCard SpendingPulse Hong Kong Report, "Overall retail sales in Hong Kong contracted 18.5% year-on-year, reflecting the deepest decline since 2014."

Only grocery outperformed overall retail sales in March, while clothing and jewellery sales dropped by more than total retail sales. After the dismal March, Q1 retail sales declined 11.7% when compared to the same period in 2015. "The early Easter holiday did nothing to stimulate spending as consumer confidence remains subdued." said Sarah Quinlan, Senior VP of market insights for MasterCard advisors. "Overall our outlook for Hong Kong retail sales remains weak as the slowdown in spending from Mainland China continues to negatively impact the Hong Kong retail economy." Quinlan added.

A slowdown in tourist spending from Mainland China is certainly no surprise, as it was only a matter of time before the massive amount of job losses made its way through the economy, something which should get worse in the future as China addresses the economic slowdown and its massive overcapacity issue.

via http://ift.tt/1T3lYgT Tyler Durden

Submitted by Mike Krieger Of Liberty Blitzkrieg

Army Captain Sues President Obama Over Illegal And Unconstitutional War On ISIS

Before I get into the heart of this piece, I want to once again applaud Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale, and author of “The Decline and Fall of the American Republic.” Mr. Ackerman has sustained a laser-like focus in recent years on exposing Obama’s brazen and unconstitutional penchant for illegal war-making.

I’ve highlighted his powerful opinion pieces on the topic twice before, first in the 2014 post, Obama’s ISIS War is Not Only Illegal, it Makes George W. Bush Look Like a Constitutional Scholar. Here are a few excerpts:

President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

 

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

 

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks. 

 

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.

 

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

Mr. Ackerman was back the following year with some additional words. From the post, The New York Times Admits – Despite Going to Congress, Obama is Still Defending Unlimited War Powers:

President Obama is going before Congress to request authorization for the limited use of military force in a battle of up to three years against the Islamic State. On the surface, this looks like a welcome recognition of Congress’s ultimate authority in matters of war and peace. But unless the resolution put forward by the White House is amended, it will have the opposite effect. Congressional support will amount to the ringing endorsement of unlimited presidential war making.

 

The problem is the double-barreled position advanced by Mr. Obama. He asserts that he already has sufficient congressional authority for an open-ended war with the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS. He bases this claim on an expansive reading of Congress’s 2001 resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to make war on Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. As long as this resolution remains on the books, Mr. Obama claims, he can continue fighting, even if Congress never agrees to a new resolution.

 

For political cover, Mr. Obama now wants Congress to grant him new authority, and yet he opposes repeal of the 2001 authorization in exchange for that new authority. Although he has pledged to refine, and ultimately repeal, the old resolution, he has failed to follow through on similar commitments in the past. If Congress contents itself with another empty promise, it is highly likely that the old act will remain on the books when the new resolution runs out in 2018. This will allow Mr. Obama’s successor to reassert his current position and continue fighting on the basis of the authority he inherited from the Bush era.

 

People who take the Constitution seriously, on both sides of the aisle, must not allow this to happen. They should insist on the repeal of the 2001 resolution and an explicit repudiation of the “associated forces” doctrine. Only then will the next president be required to return to Congress to gain its consent if he or she wants to continue the war past the 2018 deadline. If it fails to take a stand now, its sham debate will generate another destructive cycle of distrust that will further alienate Americans from their representatives.

Not one to give up, Bruce Ackerman is back in the news, this time emerging as a consultant to a lawsuit filed by Army Captain, Nathan Michael Smith, against President Obama for launching illegal wars.

The Washington Post reports:

An Army captain filed suit against President Obama on Wednesday, claiming that the president is engaged in an “illegal war” against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

 

Nathan Michael Smith, who is deployed to Kuwait as an intelligence officer at Camp Arifjan, argues in the lawsuit that the president lacks the proper authorization for his campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, because he failed to get congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

 

“In waging war against ISIS, President Obama is misusing limited congressional authorizations for the use of military force as a blank check to conduct a war against enemies of his own choosing, without geographical or temporal boundaries,” reads the lawsuit, filed by Smith and his counsel, human rights lawyer David Remes. Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman is a consultant in the suit.

 

“I began to wonder, ‘Is this the Administration’s war, or is it America’s war?’ The Constitution tells us that Congress is supposed to answer that question, but Congress is AWOL,” he said, according to the suit. “My conscience bothered me.”

 

The Constitution grants only Congress the authority to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution limits the president’s ability to deploy forces into hostile situations for more than 60 days without congressional approval, Smith argues. As a result, he was conflicted about the engagement.

 

The lawsuits rests on five counts.

 

First, Smith and his lawyers argue that Obama violated the War Powers Resolution, which requires that a president obtain congressional authorization for use of force within 60 days of deploying troops into a hostile situation.

 

Second, they say he violated the “Take Care” clause of the Constitution by failing to publish a legal justification for the conflict.

 

Third and fourth, they say Obama has exceeded his authority under the 2001 and 2002 authorizations of the use of military force. Finally, Smith and his lawyers say that Obama’s campaign against the Islamic State represents executive overreach under the Constitution.

 

Smith asks that a judge declare the ongoing campaign illegal unless Obama obtains congressional authorization, and he asks that the administration cover his legal fees.

Finally, toward the end of this same Washington Post piece, we are informed of the following…

Just last month, Obama outlined plans to expand the military’s presence in Syria to as many as 300 troops in order to continue to apply pressure to ISIS, he said. Three service members have died in combat with the Islamic State.

So more boots on the ground, despite Obama repeatedly saying “no boots on the ground” (he said it 16 times) Remarkably, the U.S. State Department is now saying he never said that, which of course he did.

For some proof, watch the incredible video below.

 

If you’re going to lie, at least be good at it.

via http://ift.tt/1NmbNF3 Tyler Durden

As politicians and businesses trip over each other to see who can raise the minimum wage the fastest and to what extent, the typical "totally unforeseen" consequences of central planning are being felt.

 

From a human resource perspective, workplace tension is on the rise.

Employees are increasingly expressing to managers that they're unhappy with the fact that new employees are starting at a base similar to what they are now earning, after months or years of hard work. Just as we stated a long time ago, raising the bottom tier pay will now make more senior workers feel underpaid. "They felt that they weren't able to get compensated for what they learned." said Catherine Knowles, a district manager for Mud Bay Inc. "As you're raising that bottom, it's affecting everybody." Knowles added.

Knowles went on to say that the only response that she can give the disgruntled employees at the moment,  is ironically "I'd love to be able to pay you a dollar more but there are costs. We're still in the business to make money."

Which brings us to the economic consequences. With the increase in baseline costs, businesses are now forced to decide whether or not take an additional hit to the bottom line and increase the pay of their more experienced, more skilled workers, knowing that if they don't they will look for work elsewhere. Also, if businesses do raise the pay for those in higher level roles, where are companies going to drive cost out in order to at least try and protect profit; Said otherwise, how many layoffs must occur in order to play this minimum wage game. At her three Tropical Smoothie Cafe locations, Laura Jankowski raised entry level pay for employees in order to comply with New York State law, which now mandates a $9.75 an hour minimum wage. Jankowski then had to increase the wages of the cafe's shift leaders to $10.75 an hour so they were at least compensated a bit more than a new employee. "I can't punish them" Jankowski said.

Tropical Smoothie shift leader Danny Zambito said that he'd likely leave the job if a shift leader got paid the same as an entry level position. "I personally would feel a little frustrated, we are putting in that extra work." Zambito said.

Not everyone is handling the issue like Laura Jankowski of course, as we've detailed extensively (here and here), companies such as Wal-Mart are laying off workers in droves after the decision was made to arbitrarily raise the minimum wage for all employees.

As the knee-jerk reactions regarding how to handle protestors yelling for an increased living wage while spilling their lattes and checking their iPhone's continue, these unintended consequences are going to become more and more intense. Layoffs will continue, higher prices (of labor) will be passed on to customers, and human resources will have to be bolstered in order to deal with increased employee complaints. All of which do not bode well for an economy already struggling to keep any semblance of growth alive.

via http://ift.tt/23w4n3Q Tyler Durden