NHTSA’s Special Crash Investigations Unit To Review Fatal Tesla Crash In Los Angeles
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened an investigation into the Dec. 29 crash of a Tesla Model S in Southern California that killed two people, reported Bloomberg.
NHTSA’s Communications Director Sean Rushton wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the crash and didn’t say if the Model S was on Autopilot during the incident.
A speeding black Tesla ran a red light and plowed into a Honda Civic Sunday, instantly killing two occupants in that car.
The Los Angeles Police Department, at the time of the accident, said two occupants in the Tesla suffered non-life threatening injuries.
NHTSA’s inquiry into the crash will be headed by the agency’s Special Crash Investigations unit. It has already investigated 13 Tesla crashes where Autopilot was suspected of malfunctioning.
Earlier last month, NHTSA announced that it would open an investigation into a crash in Connecticut where a Tesla hit a parked police cruiser while on Autopilot.
NHTSA criticized Autopilot’s lack of safeguards after it probed a 2018 crash in Sept.
Tesla and NHTSA have advised drivers that their hands must be on the steering wheel at all times while engaging Autopilot. Still, some drivers disobey the rules and take their hands off the steering wheel as it’s their belief the vehicle is fully autonomous.
IRRELEVANT:
Tesla claims sleeping at the wheel Autopilot videos are faked
RELEVANT:
Reaction time in an accident encouraged by Elon Musk’s illegal off-label hands-free promotion on @60Minutes@NHTSAgov reported $TSLA to @FTC for ‘misleading’ statements.$TSLAQ
August 2019 pic.twitter.com/DaOSpq7eW3
U.S. Senator Ed Markey recently said Tesla should suspend Autopilot to its customers until new safety mechanisms are put in place to avoid future crashes.
While a decade is just an arbitrary measure of time, people often attribute certain emotional and cultural characteristics to it, such as the “roaring 20s” of the 20th century.
The 20s of the 21st century are promising to mark a defining period in world History, particularly for the West, as vital trends that have been developing for years are expected to accelerate and reach a tipping point. “Roaring” might not be the best description by the end of it.
Consider that at the very start of the decade the UK will no longer be part of the EU, itself a monumental change with deep social, economic and geopolitical consequences. The US and other major economies will face even more profound developments this decade.
The dominant context behind all this is what British historian C. Northcote Parkinson defined in the early 1960s as the great dynamo of History – the passing of the baton of global preeminence between East and West since historical records began.
Nobody knows what will happen 6 months from now, much less a decade, but recognizing the ascendancy of the East as a whole – and the evident decline of the West – can help pinpoint important trends and cycles that are likely to materialize in the near future. That ascendancy has started decades ago and will solidify in the short years ahead.
This is a humble “back of the envelope” attempt by the author to read some through important tea leaves, colored (as a disclaimer from the outset) by his rather pessimistic view of the prospects of his native West and by his admiration of the resilience of the East:
The productivity of debt in most major economies is already below 1, meaning that it takes several dollars in new debt to create a dollar of GDP. This is particularly the case with government debt, and consequently in order to sustain even meager economic growth debt loads as percentage of GDP will continue to growing strongly, following Japan’s path;
This in turn means that interest rates can never be normalized, otherwise such debt loads would become immediately unsustainable. Financial repression will thus continue, likely even be expanded. Central banks will continue to monetize debts at unprecedented levels and even take on the role of steering industrial policy, a good example being the “green economy”;
These actions by central banks have enabled Eurozone banks over the last decade to become liquid but not necessarily solvent, a situation exacerbated by negative interest rates and the flaws of and structural imbalances generated by the Euro. A quick look at the share price of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank, clearly shows this;
Birth rates across the West will continue to fall further given a confluence of social and economic problems. Many Eastern countries are are wrestling with this problem, but the way Western elites are dealing with it are transforming its cyclical nature into a structural one, with deep generational consequences;
Related to that, the pension crisis will come to the forefront, with more Baby Boomers retiring (where possible) into pension plans that for the most part are underfunded, in many cases severely, despite record high asset prices;
Modern agriculture has been very successful in delivering calories, basically by converting copious amounts of fossil fuels into food, but rather less so in delivering nutrients. This is because it exhausts top soil and organic matter, critical to produce nutrient-dense foods. As such the health crisis will become worse as a depleted nutrition acts as a catalyst to major diseases;
All these factors will add more pressure for governments to take action, meaning that all those contingent liabilities will finally start materializing in budgets over the course of the decade – with a vengeance;
This situation is particularly serious in the US, where it is very possible that the government will lose control of its budget deficit at some point (if it hasn’t already), especially given zero political will and capability to address this. One look at the Congressional Budget Office decadal projections should raise alarm, especially as no recession is expected, but no party seems to care;
Mass migration into the Western world will continue unabated driven by massive demographic imbalances between developed and developing countries, and Western elites seeking to maintain control by “dividing and conquering” their societies and absorbing the spoils into supranational compacts that they control;
Another thing which is unlikely to change is the US’ foreign entanglements. Like with immigration and the budget deficit, no party has the will to do anything about it. Three dynamics make highly likely the emergence of a new, bigger conflict where the US will once again become involved this decade: (i) the military being spread all over the planet, raising the chances of some fire exchange with someone, even by accident, (ii) enormous military spending, already larger than several major countries combined, that keeps on growing, and (iii) America’s enemies becoming more entrenched and determined in their quest to develop capabilities to seriously challenge its dominance (like Iran developing medium-range nukes this decade, along with others);
Automation, the replacement of humans with machines, will accelerate and start replacing enough jobs to generate even more income inequality between workers and capital owners, already a sensitive topic thanks to the monetary and fiscal policy imbalances of the last decade;
It is therefore inevitable that populism will continue to increase, both on the right and the left of the political spectrum. The hollowing out of the moderate center, tied to a neo-liberal model that is seriously sputtering, will prompt a major political and social polarization in many Western societies not seen since the 1930s;
The trend towards globalization will be impaired, despite the best efforts of supranational organizations like the UN to maintain the status quo. Major exporting economies like Germany will be disproportionately impacted, creating more tensions inside an already frail EU;
The political landscape will massively change in the US. The fragmentation of political views and aspirations already means that a two party-system is incapable of dealing with differing objectives inside their respective electorates. However, the emergence of new parties is severely limited by lack of access to funding necessary to win at the federal level, which means that democracy will suffer;
This loss of democracy is even more likely given the profound demographic change taking place in the US, where immigrants tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. As a result Texas and other states will likely swing Blue by the end of the decade, meaning that Republicans will be locked out of power for a generation+. Once again California led the way for the rest of the country, with an entrenched Democrat super-majority there. As democracy recedes, societal and ethnic conflict will gradually become mainstream;
What this really means is the beginning of the end for the great American experiment this decade, as its traditional institutions – including its Constitution – can no longer properly function under such conditions. This is hugely consequential for the world in terms of prosperity and freedoms;
One feature of diverse societies is that they are inherently unstable, meaning there’s a far greater need for a government to mediate the interests and conflicts between different groups. Politicians will increasingly tighten their grip on society, aided by technology that will become even more intrusive. Silicon Valley and Washington DC will thus become even more intertwined;
Societal fragmentation will not be limited to the US, far from it. French President François Hollande warned in 2016 (after he left office, of course) that his country would eventually break apart. This may become a de facto reality in the 2020s as multiple societal, demographic and economic factors converge in French society. In fact the new decade was inaugurated with dozens of cars set on fire in Paris. These factors will also impact other European countries in similar ways, including Sweden, Belgium, even Germany;
The EU will become increasingly authoritarian to prevent more BREXITs and keep that political project going. Any dissent of its main guiding policies, from the environment to immigration, is already being stamped out under the guise of “hate speech”. It will only get worse from here. A draconian social credit system similar to what China is developing might be in place by the end of the decade. It seems inevitable that the political make-up of the EU and several of its members will be radically different by the end of the decade compared to today;
BREXIT might have been a fantastic idea given all that is happening in the EU, but the timing will prove to be off. First, we are close to a global recession, which absent very vigorous central bank action might become serious, thus curtailing any initial enthusiasm. Second, Boris Johnson will be pursuing free trade deals when the globalization tide is turning against him. Third, because in order to ensure the City of London’s preeminent access to global capital markets he will have to offer a bargaining chip, and that is what’s left of British industry – meaning the working class seats the Conservatives were able to impressively flip from Labour on the back of BREXIT. Perhaps the UK as well might not escape the coming fragmentation;
Working and middle classes across the West, including the UK and especially the US (if one looks objectively at the results of three years of “America First” policies under Donald Trump), will finally realize that they have no real political representation. The real political fault line is not between right and left, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, but rather globalism versus nationalism. There is no money in the latter, beyond extracting taxes to pay for that burgeoning government (that will inevitably oppress them) and elite pet projects, like solving “climate change” and the “migrant crisis”;
The West thrived when its working and middle classes thrived. These are the people who consume, who largely maintain the national traditions, who fight their wars. Financially and demographically they are in a very tough spot, with birth rates far below replacement levels and life expectancy plunging due to drugs and health problems. Half of Americans can’t cut a $400 check for an emergency. As things stand this rot will likely accelerate as the decade progresses;
All this does not mean that it will be smooth sailing for the East, far from it, as those economies still depend a great deal on Western markets. Still, they have a highly motivated, educated and productive workforce, comparatively low debt levels (ex-Japan), high savings and very little contingent liabilities. They are also very safe to live in. Attracting top talent from the US and Europe, in addition to their own, should not be too difficult, further cementing their competitiveness. In a sense these economies are merely reverting to the global place they used to occupy before that baton swung to the West;
Russia is an interesting case as it was always between East and West, given its vast cultural, ethnic and geographical components. Thanks to incredible short-sightedness and (frankly speaking) stupidity from the NeoCons in Washington DC it will now embrace its Eastern future. The 2020s will consolidate the emergence of Eurasia as a super economic block towards the end of the century, independent from any US interference;
That sets up different scenarios for the coming fracturing of the EU by mid-century, if not sooner. Eastern European countries should gradually gravitate towards Eurasia, including Germany – the worst case scenario for US hegemony. The center West of Europe will become more culturally and demographically aligned with Africa, and so might pursue its future there. And Portugal and Spain, if they had any sense, should seek close ties with their cultural peers in Latin America and Africa;
Africa could be the one bright spot in the middle of all the turmoil elsewhere, especially given that it has a lot of development potential and a vast supply of all sorts of natural resources. China (i.e. the East) is spending vast sums to unlock this potential and is now the continent’s largest trading partner. Unfortunately, the constraints holding Africa back are all too familiar: corruption, loss of their most enterprising people to mass migration, weak institutions incapable of addressing the aspirations of its very young populations and increasing social and ethnic conflicts, exacerbated by a resurgence of political Islam – another quintessential Eastern ideology that gains force whenever the West declines. This decade will indicate which way it will eventually go the rest of the century;
Energy prices should remain very volatile, as demand is pressured by a weakening of the economic cycle and supply by a coming peak in US crude oil production this decade. The explosive situation across the Middle East, from Libya to Pakistan, will add much greater uncertainty as the decade unfolds. The West faced serious oil shocks in the 1970s as the US could no longer ramp up its production to counter supply embargoes from the Middle East; it is vulnerable to a repeat of that by the end of the decade. Sustained crude oil price rallies above $100/bbl would very likely put a nail in the coffin of the financial house of cards concocted by Western central banks;
Commodities markets in general should perform better on a relative basis this decade, especially when compared to US stock markets, which have been on an absolute tear since the end of the financial crisis in 2009. The longest bull market in the context of the weakest capital expenditures cycle since WW2 suggests that significant productive capacity might be taken offline at some point this decade. Mean reversion is a real thing in capital markets;
Aging farming populations worldwide, quite severe in some cases, will finally put significant pressure on food supplies by mid-decade, if not sooner. And the young, so far, are not replacing them. As a result, record food supplies globally at the start of the decade may turn into food deficits by the end, especially given strong population growth projections (including in the West via mass migration);
And the US dollar? Its cycles typically last around a decade, and if that is the case we might be nearing the end of is bull run, certainly this decade. Adding to this cyclical outlook is the fundamental deterioration of the US fiscal position outlined above. That deficit will have to be financed somehow, and some pretty juicy yields might have to be offered especially if the dollar starts weakening. While it may still remain the world’s reserve currency given lack of competitors, cryptocurrencies might increasingly offer an alternative. StableCoins, a variant, in particular offer governments a monetary alternative to generate growth within the constraints of the Euro, for instance;
Gold should remain part of any investor’s portfolio (in physical form), although nobody can say for sure whether prices will be higher in dollar terms by the end of the decade. Trillions of dollars in debt issued in the last decade will become due and together with weak economic growth the risk of a deflationary shock remains significant;
The wildcard in predicting financial outcomes is as Western societies profoundly change so will the rules of the investment game. It’s not inconceivable that capital controls will be in place before the end of the decade. The more Europe and the US sink into deep fiscal and economic issues, the bigger that wildcard will be;
Investors’ focus will gradually shift from speculation to wealth preservation, given the dearth of fairly valued opportunities at the start of the decade and a far more uncertain global environment.
Summing up, this decade will very likely be remembered for the end of the world order that had been in place since WW2.
Yes, there is a positive drift on societies across the world emanating from relentless technological progress, but it is highly unlikely that this will do anything to stop the profound demographic, financial and cultural changes that have accelerated this past decade.
Adam Smith noted that a nation can take a lot of ruin. For decades Westerners have been doing their best to figure out how much. Not only that, but a progressive cultural revolution starting in the 1960s has upended all Western traditional values and morals, and so the present generations are ill-prepared to cope with the massive challenges that lie ahead.
If there is a silver lining in all this is that young people are starting to acknowledge the failure and dead-end of the current economic, moral and governance models, and are gradually returning to tradition, family life and communities. Localism, as opposed to globalism, will gain traction.
Building resilience should be the motto of the coming decade.
And with that, wish you a very hopeful, positive and healthy 2020.
So Many People Have Fled California The State May Lose Multiple Seats In Congress
California is poised to lose multiple congressional seats after the 2020 census for the first time in the state’s history, thanks to an exodus of more than 200,000 people between 2018 and 2019, according to the Los Angeles Times. Top destinations include Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Colorado.
“It’s got a lot to do with dispersion from California to the rest of the west,” said senior Brookings fellow, William Frey. “Arizona, Texas and Colorado are all big destinations for California migrants, and they all are gaining seats.”
About 203,000 people left California in that period, a result of the state’s shifting migration patterns and economic strains that are making it harder to afford living here. New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Louisiana also saw large losses to other states.
California’s potential loss in reapportionment, which will be determined by next year’s census count, would drop the state’s number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives from 53 to 52, said William Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. –LA Times
According to a relocation survey by Texas Realtors, 63,175 Californians moved to Texas in 2017, while almost 41,000 Texans moved to the Golden State. And while California may lose a seat in the House, Texas is likely to gain three seats after the 2020 census. Arizona, Colorado and Oregon may gain one seat apiece.
A state’s population includes all residents – citizens and non-citizens, along with overseas federal employees and their dependents from whatever state they claim as home, according to the US Census Bureau.
That said, if illegal immigrants fail to participate or fail to give honest household figures, California could lose multiple seats according to state redistricting analyst Paul Mitchell,
“If, as many fear, non-citizen populations and the state’s heavily Latino population either fails to participate or participates without providing full household counts, then California could lose more than one seat,” said Mitchell.
The House of Representatives, meanwhile, is limited to 435 members thanks to a 1929 federal law which lawmakers and the president could change if they wanted to.
Exactly where California would lose a seat in the House depends on which communities are larger or smaller compared to census numbers from 2010. The state’s Citizens Redistricting Commission, whose members will be selected in coming months, will hold public hearings in 2021 to determine how to redraw congressional maps.
Paul Mitchell, one of the state’s leading analysts of the redistricting process, said that two places could dominate the discussion: the communities sitting at the intersection of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties and the suburbs to the east of San Francisco. –LA Times
The most obvious political impact is that incumbent House members would need to run against each other or leave office. The Times notes that in 2012, “Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Northridge) defeated former Rep. Howard Berman in a bitter contest brought on by the new lines drawn in Los Angeles County.”
Losing a House seat would be a “massive rewrite of the Central Valley congressional districts,” said Mitchell.
State census workers, community organizations and local politicians started outreach efforts as early as April to ensure an accurate tally in next year’s count. In addition to reapportionment, nearly $800 billion in federal tax dollars and political redistricting are at stake. –LA Times
Officials say Los Angeles county will be the hardest to accurately tally because of its high concentrations of renters, homeless people, and immigrants who may not participate due to language barriers or fear of being targeted by federal immigration authorities.
Meanwhile, the US growth rate has declined steadily over the past decade – with California leading the charge according to Frey, with about 400,000 people under the age of 18.
“This is a symptom of an aging population,” Frey said, adding “and in states like California, an out-migration of younger families with children.”
“Revolutionary Changes In Public Opinion” – Gallup’s Decade in Review: 2010-2019
Authored by Justin McCarthy, a journalist and analyst at Gallup,
A review of Gallup analyses over the past decade reveals that the years from 2010 to 2019 bore witness to key revolutionary changes in public opinion, along with some persistent trends and concerns, as well as striking moments and lasting effects.
Here are the changes, issues and moments in public opinion that Gallup editors think will long be associated with the 2010s:
Revolutionary Changes
Same-Sex Marriage: When the decade began, only a handful of states had legalized gay marriage and most Americans opposed it. But in 2011, Gallup recorded majority support for same-sex marriage for the first time. Americans continued to warm to gay marriage as the decade progressed, with support reaching the 60% mark just before the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision made gay marriage legal nationwide.
In the final years of the decade, support has ranged between 61% and 67%. The wholesale change in public attitudes about gay marriage over such a short time span represents one of Gallup’s most compelling public opinion trends.
Marijuana: Much like the issue of same-sex marriage, Americans’ views on legalizing marijuana have vastly changed, with the sharpest shift in support for legalization occurring in the past 10 years.
The U.S. Economy: That two in three Americans say it is a good time to find a quality job in the U.S. at the conclusion of 2019 shows how far U.S. consumers have come from the economic despair Gallup found as the decade began.
In January 2010, just 9% of Americans said it was a good time to find a quality job. And for the better part of the decade, Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index was in negative territory as Americans continued to reel from the effects of the global economic crisis and the U.S. recession. President Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017 marked an important turning point as Americans again became net-positive about the economy and jobs in particular. But Gallup has consistently found that most Americans view the country’s current and future economic health through a political lens.
Political Polarization: Republicans and Democrats have become more polarized in their views on issues and evaluations of politicians. This polarizing trend is not unique to the end of the decade, but it’s one that has accelerated over the past 10 years.
Religion: Religious faith is prominent in the U.S., but much less so than in previous decades. Church membership and attendance — as well as frequency of attendance — are all down to record lows. Americans have become less likely to believe in God. Meanwhile, more than one in five Americans (21%) now describe themselves as having no religion, a sizable jump from 14% in 2010 and 8% in 1999.
Gun Violence: Many of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history have occurred during the past decade, and Americans have often reacted to these events with alarm. In 2012, U.S. parents worries’ about their children’s safety rose after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which marked one of the least happy days in 2012, according to Americans’ self-reports of their emotions. In March 2018, less than a month after the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, Americans’ mentions of guns as the nation’s top problem spiked to a record high. But much like the cyclical political conversations on gun control, these fears typically decline until the next event drives them back up again.
Terrorism: Americans’ worries about terrorism in the 2010s were somewhat of a holdover from the prior decade, which was largely defined and shaped by the attacks that took place on Sept. 11, 2001. Much like gun violence, Americans’ worries about terrorism ebb and flow in reaction to terrorism in the U.S. and abroad. The 2013 Boston Marathon bombings prompted a double-digit increase in the percentage of Americans who believed another terrorist attack was coming. After the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Americans’ concerns about the possibility of future terrorist attacks rose the most among a list of 15 problems facing the U.S.
Osama bin Laden: Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden had been “Public Enemy No. 1” even before the attacks on 9/11. His eluding capture had dogged then-President George W. Bush, who was in the first year of his presidency when the U.S. experienced the deadliest terrorist attack in its history.
Government Shutdowns: The federal government shut down three times over the decade. While one was relatively brief (Jan. 20-22, 2018), the other two lasted weeks — with the most recent shutdown that ended in January 2019 being the longest in U.S. history. Gallup has found that these events affected Americans’ views of the country in various ways.
The Tea Party: The seeds of the Tea Party movement took root in 2009 and early 2010 when fiscal conservatives opposed “excessive” federal spending and government bailouts — and later, when conservative Republicans were outraged over various proposals from the new Democratic-controlled Congress and White House, particularly the Affordable Care Act.
But the movement bore fruit in 2010, when 87 Republicans were newly elected to Congress, many under the umbrella of the Tea Party movement — representing one of the GOP’s greatest electoral victories in generations. In 2010, Gallup found that more than a quarter of Americans (28%) and about half of Republicans (49%) were supporters of the Tea Party movement, with strong support among whites and conservatives. Support for the movement waned after peaking at 32% following its successes in the 2010 elections. By 2015 — the last time Gallup posed the question — support was about half that level (17%).
Occupy Wall Street: Not long after the Tea Party movement’s successes in 2010, the Occupy Wall Street movement was born when protesters in New York City’s Zuccotti Park remained there for two months in the fall of 2011. This prompted national and international re-creations of the protest and ignited larger conversations about wealth inequality in the U.S., particularly the top 1% of income earners.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA): One of the decade’s most significant pieces of legislation was passed at its beginning. Signed by Obama in March 2010, the ACA successfully reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans. The bill, which became widely known as “Obamacare,” was controversial, with 45% of Americans supporting it and 48% opposing just weeks before its passage.
Since then, public opinion has continued to tilt against the law, averaging 46% approval and 49% disapproval since 2012, based on annual averages. Americans were most negative about the ACA as the ACA exchanges opened in late 2013 and the individual mandate took effect in early 2014. The ACA enjoyed majority approval in only two polls, both conducted in 2017, amid Republican attempts to repeal it. Twin polls in 2019 found the law just as divisive today as it was at the start, with 50% approving of the ACA and 48% disapproving.
Though Americans skew negative in their views of socialism, their views are more nuanced when asked about specific aspects of government responsibility. With more political leaders, namely Democrats, adopting socialist messages, the coming decade will tell whether Americans become more positive in their views of socialism or whether they will remain as negative about it as they were in the 2010s.
Former US Attorney Joe diGenova told OANN‘s John Hines that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan were “coup leaders” in an attempt to reverse the outcome of the 2016 US election.
DiGenova says the Obama Justice Department was corrupted under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, “with the authority and knowledge of then-president” Obama, and that a ‘stupid and arrogant’ Susan Rice was dumb enough to document his knowledge in a January 20th, 2017 email.
“And you’ll never forget, I’m sure, that famous Susan Rice email on inauguration day of Donald Trump, where she sends an email to the file memorializing that there had been a meeting on January 5th with the president of the United States, all senior law enforcement and intelligence officials, where they reviewed the status of Crossfire Hurricane and the president announced – President Obama – that he was sure that everything had been done by the book.
I want to thank Susan Rice for being so stupid and so arrogant to write that email on January 20th because that’s exhibit A for Barack Obama – who knew all about this from start to finish, and was more than happy to have the civil rights of a massive number of Americans violated so he could get Donald Trump.” -Joe diGenova
Moreover, diGenova says that after “all this stuff involving Trump and Page and Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn,” anyone who couldn’t see that the “corrupt investigative process of the FBI and DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d’état” is an idiot.
“This was not hard. If you’re a good prosecutor you look at the facts in the Trump case, and the Page case, the Flynn case. There’s only one conclusion you can come to; none of this makes any sense. None of these people were evil. None of them. They were framed, and the whole process was playing out, and you knew it on July 5th 2016, when James Comey announced – usurping the functions of the Attorney General, that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary Clinton. That was ludicrous! She destroyed 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. If you or I did that, we would be in prison today. She got a break because she was Hillary Clinton, and James Comey was trying to kiss her fanny because he wanted something from her when she became president of the United States.
All of these people who watched that news conference and didn’t think that it was a disgrace for the FBI. And then subsequently, watched all this stuff involving Trump and Page and Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn – and couldn’t see that the corrupt investigative process of the FBI and the DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d’état. I mean you have to be an idiot. Any first year assistant US attorney would look at all these facts and say ‘there’s a coup underway. There’s a conspiracy.’
But for those of us thought that, the Washington Post, the New York Times. We were ‘conspiracy theorists.’ You know what? Pretty damn good theory, it appears today.
“To what extent is the CIA involved in this?” asked Hines.
“Well there’s no doubt that John Brennan was the primogenitor of the entire counterintelligence investigation,” replied diGenova. “It was John Brennan who went to James Comey and basically pummeled him into starting a counterintelligence investigation against Trump. Brennan’s at the heart of this. He went around the world. He enlisted the help of foreign intelligence services. He’s responsible for Joseph Mifsud and other people.”
“People do not have even the beginning of an understanding of the role that John Brennan played in this. He is a monstrously important person, and I underscore monstrously important person. He has done more damage to the Central Intelligence Agency – it’s equal to what James Comey has done to the FBI. It’s pretty clear that James Comey will go down in history as the single worst FBI director in history, regardless of how Mr. Durham treats him.”
“He precipitated it. He caused it. He encouraged it, and he is responsible for it at a minimum. He and John Brennan are the coup leaders.”
Normal cyclical patterns have gone missing, and may not be coming back anytime soon…
The U.S. economy has experienced its slowest recovery from a recession in the post-World War II era, and the longer it lasts the more evidence there is that normal cyclical patterns are missing. And their absence means market participants shouldn’t rely on them to divine the economy’s future.
Consider the myriad developments that are atypical, or even the reverse of normal economic and financial market behavior. The Federal Reserve shifted from easing credit to tightening following past downturns, with its target federal funds rate normally raised within a year or so of the recession’s trough, eventually precipitating the next economic contraction. This time, the central bank kept its policy rate at the recessionary low of essentially zero until Dec. 2015, 78 months into the recovery. And then, after nine quarter-percentage point increases, it reversed course early this year with three rate cuts.
Far from the Fed’s normal worries about an overheating economy and inflation, the central bank frets that low and even declining consumer prices will spawn deflationary expectations. Buyers will hold off in anticipation of lower prices. Inventories and excess capacity will mount, forcing prices down. The price cuts confirm suspicions and purchases are delayed even further, sparking a deflationary spiral. The glaring example is Japan, with deflation in most years in the past two decades and tiny real GDP annual growth of 1.1%.
Also, despite the plunge in 30-year fixed mortgage rates from 6.8% in July 2006 to the current 3.7%, rate-sensitive single-family housing starts have been muted. They fell from a 1.8 million annual rate in January 2006 to 350,000 in March 2009 as the subprime mortgage market collapsed, but have only recovered to 940,000.
Mortgage lending criteria have tightened and prime-age first-time homebuyers don’t have the necessary downpayments. The net worth of households headed by 18-to-34-year-olds dropped from $120,000 in 2001 to $90,000 in 2016, a 44% decline adjusted for inflation. Also, they learned from the last recession that for the first time since the 1930s, house prices nationwide can fall.
In past business recoveries, the U.S. household saving rate fell as consumer spending grew faster than incomes. In this expansion, it’s the reverse, leaping from 4.9% to 7.9% in November, retarding spending.
Past postwar recessions spawned financial problems, but nothing like the 2008 crisis. The government’s reaction was equally severe with the enactment of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and other stringent regulations for financial institutions that are only now being slowly relaxed.
In earlier business upswings, a drop in the unemployment rate of anything like the plunge from 10% in October 2009 to the current 3.5% would have spawned massive wage inflation. This time, real wages are barely growing.
Globalization transported many high-paid manufacturing jobs to China. With the growing “on demand” economy—think Uber Technologies Inc. —many people trade flexibility in working hours for low pay. The payroll jobs that are being created are mostly in low-wage sectors such as retailing and leisure & hospitality.
For years, foreign policy was bipartisan and expanding trade was considered highly desirable. Now, globalists have been overcome by protectionists, spurred by voters upset over stagnant purchasing power and rising income and asset inequality in G-7 countries. Trump’s 2016 election along with the U.K.’s “Brexit” from the European Union are among the results. Then there’s also the demise of global trade deals, which are being replaced by bilateral agreements or no pacts at all.
The U.S.-China trade dispute will no doubt persist because China, with a declining labor force as a result of its earlier one child-per-couple policy, needs Western technologies to grow and achieve its worldwide leadership ambitions. But the U.S. is opposed to the technology transfers China wants.
The dollar’s slide from 1985 until 2007 encouraged U.S. exports, curbed imports and gave U.S. multinationals currency-related boosts to profits. Since then, the dollar index has rallied 33% amid a global demand for haven assets. And it should continue to, given the relatively faster growth of the U.S. economy, its huge, free and open financial markets and the lack of meaningful substitutes for the greenback.
Disinflation has reigned since 1980, but real interest rates were positive until the last decade. But for 10 years now, real 10-year Treasury note yields have been flat at zero (see my Nov. 19, 2018 column, “Zero Real Yields Are Tripping Up Investors”). This and the flat yield curve have pushed state pension funds and other investors far out on the risk curve in search of real returns, bidding up stocks to vulnerable levels.
Earlier, the Fed was run by Ph.D. economists who clung to widely-held theories even though they didn’t work. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is proving to be much more practical, backing away from rigid Fed policies such as the 2% inflation target and a zero-bound policy rate as well as unsuccessful forward guidance.
In this different economic climate, it’s hard to time the end of the current recovery. Still, it will end, due either to Fed overtightening or a financial crisis, like the 2000 dot-com blow-off or the 2007-2009 subprime mortgage collapse. In the current excess supply-savings glut-deflationary world, it’s likely a recession will unfold due to a shock before the Fed overtightens.
No financial crises are in sight, but there are possibilities such as excess debt in China and among U.S. businesses, a trade war escalation, consumer retrenchment resulting in widespread deflation, and disappointing corporate profits measured against sky-high stock prices. Watch for specific imbalances, not typical past patterns.
A Third Of 18-34 Year Olds Live With Their Parents And Other 2019 Housing Market Highlights, In Charts
As Goldman housing strategist Marty Young writes in his “year in review” housing and mortgage market summary, 2019 was characterized by sharply falling mortgage rates and a strengthening housing market:
120bp: 30-year mortgage rates fell by 120bp between 2018Q4 and 2019Q4.
+17%: single family housing starts increased by 17% from November 2018 to November 2019.
+3.2%: the Case-Shiller US house price index has grown by 3.2% over the past 12 months.
50%: 50% of outstanding conventional 30-year mortgage borrowers have a 50bp or larger refinance incentive as of 2019Q4 (up from 6% as of 2018Q4).
5bp: agency MBS spreads widened by 5bp in 2019 (vs. 60bp of tightening of IG corporate bond spreads).
$230bn: Federal Reserve agency MBS holdings declined by $230bn over the past year.
$25bn: non-QM RMBS issuance has reached $25bn in 2019 year-to-date (vs. $11bn in 2018
One remarkable observation: roughly a third of young Americans aged 18-34 now live with their parents: up from 27% before the crisis. Depending on how one looks at this data, it means that either household formation is about to soar, or an entire generation now has doubts it will ever be able to own its own house.
Looking ahead, the Goldman strategist expects slightly higher mortgage rates and a strong housing market for 2020:
Expect mortgage rates to increase by 25bp in 2020, ending the year at 4.0%.
Look for single family housing starts to increase by 5% in 2020 vs. 2019.
Expect the Case-Shiller US house price index to grow by 3% in 2020.
Expect 30% of outstanding conventional 30-year mortgage borrowers to still be in-the-money for refinancing in 2020Q4.
Look for mortgage spreads to move sideways and for IG spreads to widen by 20bp in 2020H1.
Expect Federal Reserve MBS holdings to decline by an additional $220bn in 2020.
Expect non-QM issuance to grow again to $30bn in 2020.
And here are some of the pivotal charts recapping the housing market from the perspective of Goldman Sachs:
Earlier this month I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
As I look back on my time on campus, I can honestly say I am thankful for both the professors who challenged me intellectually and were open to my conservative views — as well as the professors who tried to indoctrinate me, belittled my principles, or allowed me to be verbally bullied by classmates.
That’s because both types of experiences taught me how to better defend my beliefs as I enter the next stage in my life: real life.
As I consider law school, I know that my potential future career as an attorney would be built upon defending my stances with wisdom and logic. With that, I appreciate the tutelage the intellectual sparring on campus gave me. It toughened me up, taught me how to argue the facts.
That’s not to say that I support professors who shut down their students’ thoughts and opinions. Nor did I enjoy being condescended to as an undergrad.
But looking back, in hindsight, it did help me grow.
Prior to my university experience, I was home-schooled from first grade through twelfth grade. I felt this non-traditional start to my educational journey might put me at a disadvantage, or at least at a different starting point, than some of my classmates. What I came to discover after some time in the classroom was that I was well-prepared to defend my beliefs.
Often I was the only conservative student to speak up in class, and I did have my fair share of leftist professors who badgered me over my opinions on abortion, immigration and economics.
For example, one professor my sophomore year labeled me “anti-choice” in front of the class when I expressed that the government should have a Constitutional responsibility to protect pre-born children.
But there’s another side to this story, too. I also had some professors who heard me out when I questioned their political views.
I can still recall the time I challenged one of my professor’s anti-capitalism opinions during a lecture. After class he walked up to me, and my stomach was gripped with tension of the unknown. Yet to my pleasant surprise, he offered me an extra credit opportunity to write an essay on why I believe capitalism is the best economic system.
This teaching opportunity strengthened my ability to articulate my opinions and gave me a chance to practice my writing skills.
I am grateful to say I had other professors who, although they disagreed with me, did not shut me down or insult me because of it. These select few professors were the highlight of my college experience, educators who prioritized teaching over indoctrination. They are a powerful reminder that some scholars still allow the Socratic method in their classrooms. They offer a chance for their students — both conservative and liberal — to grow as individuals and intellectuals.
Let me speak for my peers when I say “thank you” to all those professors out there who honor their call to educate. You help make our experiences on campus not only tolerable, but enjoyable.
Students in the university system in America shouldn’t be afraid to express their different views. They should be encouraged to express dissent and be taught how to defend their ideas and build arguments using reason and logic.
Unfortunately, far too often, leftist indoctrination is the lesson of the day. And not all students take it well, namely conservative freshmen who were not taught by their parents or high school teachers counter-arguments to liberal tropes. I’ve seen it happen first hand. They know capitalism is the only system that has lifted the most out of poverty, but they stumble on citing specifics. All too often they get devoured by their left-leaning professors and peers, and end up feeling bullied and belittled. They then go silent, or even worse, buy into the progressive dogma that socialism is the solution to all of the world’s evils.
I’m glad that wasn’t me. As I look back on my experience at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, I recall professors who challenged my beliefs through bullying tactics and intimidation, as well as professors who challenged me in order to strengthen my arguments and promote my academic success. I grew from both learning experiences.
The professors who tried to silence me taught me the importance of standing up for myself and for those who are voiceless in the face of unreason and unkindness. The professors who challenged my beliefs and encouraged me to work on articulating them in order to build a stronger argument gave me the tools I need to succeed in the decades to come.
Like me, conservative students who have fought bias throughout their education can step into the real world having already faced adversity by surviving a campus where about 80 percent of your peers and nearly 100 percent of your professors disagree with your political views.
While it is disappointing and disheartening that the once-great university system in America is so blatantly biased, and discourages differing viewpoints of students, there is hope in the strong level-headed and determined conservative students who are being shaped by this academic hazing into the future conservative leaders of America.
Baltimore City Breaks Murder Record Of The Century
Baltimore City slid further into chaos and just broke its highest ever per-capita homicide rate after recording its 347th murder on Monday.
With about 602,000 residents, Baltimore City’s homicide rate breached 57 per 100,000 residents after 13 people have been murdered since Dec. 21.
The annual death toll has only hit 342 on two other occasions, onetime in 2017 and another in 2015. Breaching the 342 level to 347 is uncharted territory and suggests the situation will get worse in 2019.
This is the 5th year the city has recorded murders over 300, due mostly to the Ferguson effect post-2015 riots and socio-economic deterioration in the town.
The highest ever per-capita homicide rate and an out of control opioid epidemic comes as the total population in the city crashes to a 100-year low, many are fleeing the city for the suburbs as the local economy continues to dive deeper into a depression, never recovered since 2008.
Baltimore City Mayor Bernard “Jack” Young held an end-of-year news conference on public safety Monday. Young said, “Our residents deserve to live without the fear of violence and it is my obligation and duty to leverage every resource and tool available to stop the cycle of violence that is crippling our city.”
He added, “We cannot stop violent crime through policing alone. We must use both community-based interventions and an integrated crime-fighting strategy.”
Young also wrote an op-ed in The Baltimore Sun on Tuesday about his new strategy to turn Baltimore City around will focus on identifying and charging gun crimes and holding weekly case reviews with the police department and the State’s Attorney’s Office.
Baltimore City Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said the number of people killed in the city this year is “deeply disturbing.”
“That level of violence simply cannot be tolerated in a civil society, much less in a great city like Baltimore,” Harrison said.
He said the department would start treating the “actual disease” of violence, instead of what he characterized as the symptoms.
“[W]hen we only treat symptoms and never deal with root cause issues, violence, like a disease, builds resistance. It gets stronger and becomes more difficult to eradicate,” Harrison said.
Bitcoin easily succeeds over other cryptocurrencies in multiple key areas, which all but guarantee its future as the standard, noted academic Konrad S. Graf has concluded.
In the second installment of a two-part interview with Eurasia Review published Jan. 1, Graf highlighted a plethora of “competitive advantages” inherent to Bitcoin.
Graf has sought to gain exposure for Bitcoin through academic essays, which expand beyond its mechanism of action to situate it within the broader economic system.
Scarcity
Bitcoin wins out over other forms of money — including other cryptocurrencies — largely due to its fixed supply.
“Bitcoin’s top competitive advantage… is its ability (to) restrict new issuance, the relative reliability of its methods for controlling unit production,” Graf summarizes.
Specifically, Bitcoin’s supply cannot be manipulated, nor can its maximum issuance — 21 million units — ever change to dilute it.
No entity, no matter how powerful in terms of computing power active on the network, can diminish the value of the existing BTC held by savers by increasing the supply. This is in direct contrast to cryptocurrencies with a mutable supply, such as Ethereum (ETH) and XRP, as well as all fiat currencies.
Apolitical value transfer
The above characteristic thus makes Bitcoin particularly useful for settlements from anyone to anyone, as a financial protocol immune to the trappings of fiat.
Here, Graf touches on Saifedean Ammous’ popular book, “The Bitcoin Standard,” which extensively examines Bitcoin’s advantages over fiat. Ammous likewise devotes space to how Bitcoin could function as a settlement currency without the need for middlemen.
“Ammous argues that it is in the — for most people quite arcane — field of settlements that Bitcoin could find some of its most competitive applications. It could become not only an in-common non-political money unit, but also a direct competitor to the SWIFT system and any other existing or emerging rivals to it,” Graf explains.
He continues:
“In a world where conventional systems are also politicized, Bitcoin has an advantage of being “neutral” in the sense that it is controlled by none of the competing power blocks, which means that any and all could potentially participate.”
Technical prowess
Against major altcoins, Bitcoin’s technical prowess means its position as a market leader has been obvious for years, says Graf.
As Cointelegraph has also frequently reported, hash rate alone has achieved an order of magnitude better progress than Ethereum or similar market incumbents.
“BTC currently has 97 exahashes protecting its network to BCH’s 2.5 exahashes, giving BTC a hash rate 39 times higher than that of even its next closest digital-cash competitor,” he continues.
Bitcoin network hash rate vs. Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV. Source: Coin.dance
That attribute also differentiates Bitcoin from imitators with very similar characteristics — the principle may be the same, but hash rate distribution, or centralization, and activity on those other networks pale by comparison.
It’s not an entity
On the topic of centralization, a final advantage Bitcoin has over “corporate” blockchains is its lack of weak points political actors can target.
That benefit has become all the more apparent in 2019, the year in which Facebook unveiled and subsequently faced a global backlash over its digital currency protocol, Libra.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared before U.S. lawmakers alone several times, amid criticisms Facebook was attempting to remove government monopolies over the proposed stablecoin currency.
“There is no CEO to summon to Washington for interrogation,” Graf concludes about Bitcoin.
