Month: March 2024

Via PraCap.com,

Everyone thinks of inflation as being purely a financial phenomenon. However, it is much more than that. It is also a social phenomenon. As the inflation accelerates, an opportunist class rises to the top of society, and the productive class is impoverished. Inflation re-orients all economic activities, encouraging speculation at the expense of work, and forever changing the people who experience it. This societal aspect is rarely discussed.

Fortunately, my buddy, Erik Renander, recently wrote a blog post on the topic. As he did a better job of it than I would ever hope to, with his permission, I’ve re-posted his entry in its entirety.

For disclosure, I’m a paid-up subscriber to YWR. If you enjoyed this blog post, I recommend you also check out his recent podcast with my friends at the Market Huddle.  

The following was originally published on YWR on March 23rd, 2024…

Disclosure: These are personal views only and not investment recommendations. For investment advice seek professional help.

We’ve learned a lot from Project Zimbabwe.

We’ve learned that as inflation takes hold, the prices of everything rise unimaginably. Daily goods, stock prices, real estate, everything.

We reviewed the example of Delta Breweries, a beer company where volumes were unchanged over a 7 year period, and yet the share price rose 1000x.

Source: Project Zimbabwe presentation and company filings.

We learned that in high periods of inflation, inflation becomes the dominant factor. It becomes less about what you own (value vs growth or tech vs banks) and more that you own something.

We learned that in times of high inflation the risk is not so much to the left (20% stock market correction), but to the right.

It’s the risk that prices rise unimaginably and you are left behind.

We learned from from Zimbabwe that paradoxically, Bad is Good when it comes to the stock market.

There can be power outages, crop failures, people walking around with no money and yet the market goes to the moon.

Stocks, property, precious metals; everything goes up as people scramble to escape cash.

But that’s Zimbabwe. It’s Africa.

We study it because it’s a useful exaggeration. It’s a way for us to understand how markets dynamics change as inflation rises.

But that type of a market environment is rare in this day and age. We have to study obscure countries in Africa, or Latin America to understand what happens.

Thankfully, that would never happen here. Right?

We don’t have to worry about high inflation. The Fed has raised rates, inflation is moderating and things are under control.

Still, it might be useful to be able recognize the signs if things were shifting towards a hyper inflationary environment. And what would those signs be?

Of course there would be monthly economic statistics to show us CPI was running structurally higher, but maybe if inflation numbers were bouncing around a lot it might be hard to tell the trend, especially in the beginning.

But maybe there would be other signs along the way, which would warn us inflation was going to get a lot worse. Maybe there would be cultural signs that things were going to spiral out of control.

The best account I’ve come across of the cultural signs leading to inflation is ‘Fiat Money Inflation in France’ by Andrew Dickson White, a history professor and founder of Cornell. It was written back in 1896 as a historical review of the Assignats and France’s slide into inflation in 1789.

As with Zimbabwe, we learn that the worse things seem to get, the more the market rises.

It’s another example of the Bad is Good theme.

So what were some of the signs along the way from France’s slide?

It always starts the same way. Business is slow and the government is looking for a shortcut.

EARLY in the year 1789 the French nation found itself in deep financial embarrassment: there was a heavy debt and a serious deficit.

There was a general want of confidence in business circles; capi- tal had shown its proverbial timidity by retiring out of sight as far as possible; throughout the land was stagnation.

Statesmanlike measures, careful watching and wise management would, doubtless, have ere long led to a return of confidence, a reappearance of money and a resumption of business; but these involved patience and self-denial, and, thus far in human history, these are the rarest products of political wisdom. Few nations have ever been able to exercise these virtues; and France was not then one of these few.

There was a general search for some short road to prosperity: ere long the idea was set afloat that the great want of the country was more of the circulating medium; and this this was speedily followed by calls for an issue of paper money.

In the beginning there is resistance to large issuances of debt. It is seen as being financial imprudent. But, gradually the politicians and the people learn to crave it, and the debt increases exponentially. There is no more resistance.

France was now fully committed to a policy of inflation; and, if there had been any question of this before, all doubts were removed now by various acts very significant as showing the exceeding difficulty of stopping a nation once in the full tide of a depreciating currency.

The first inflation bills were passed with great difficulty, after very sturdy resistance and by a majority of a few score out of nearly a thousand votes; but we observe now that new inflation measures were passed more and more easily and we shall have occasion to see the working of this same law in a more striking degree as this history develops itself.

US Treasury Debt, corporate bonds and bank loans outstanding. Source: FRED

The economy rebounds after every stimulus, but the rebounds get shorter and shorter.

The great majority of Frenchmen now became desperate optimists, declaring that inflation is prosperity. Throughout France there came temporary good feeling. The nation was becoming inebriated with paper money. The good feeling was that of a drunkard just after his draught; and it is to be noted as a simple historical fact, corresponding to a physiological fact, that, as draughts of paper money came faster the successive periods of good feeling grew shorter.

Inflation starts to change the culture. There becomes an obsession with luxury and speculation.

But these evils, though great, were small compared to those far more deep-seated signs of disease which now showed themselves throughout the country. One of these was the obliteration of thrift from the minds of the French people. The French are naturally thrifty; but, with such masses of money and with such uncertainty as to its future value, the ordinary motives for saving and care diminished, and a loose luxury spread throughout the country.

There is an obsession with trading and speculation.

A still worse outgrowth was the increase of speculation and gambling. With the plethora of paper currency in 1791 appeared the first evidences of that cancerous disease which always follows large issues of irredeemable currency,—a disease more permanently injurious to a nation than war, pestilence or famine.

For at the great metropolitan centers grew a luxurious, speculative, stock-gambling body, which, like a malignant tumor, absorbed into itself the strength of the nation and sent out its cancerous fibres to the remotest hamlets. At these city centers abundant wealth seemed to be piled up: in the country at large there grew a dislike of steady labor and a contempt for moderate gains and simple living.

Now began to be seen more plainly some of the many ways in which an inflation policy robs the working class. As these knots of plotting schemers at the city centers were becoming bloated with sudden wealth, the producing classes of the country, though having in their possession more and more currency, grew lean. In the schemes and speculations put forth by stock-jobbers and stimulated by the printing of more currency, multitudes of small fortunes were absorbed and lost while a few swollen fortunes were rapidly aggregated in the larger cities.

Speculation and inflation lead to corruption.

Nor was this reckless and corrupt spirit confined to business men; it began to break out in official circles, and public men who, a few years before, had been thought above all possibility of taint, became luxurious, reckless, cynical and finally corrupt. Mirabeau himself, who, not many months previous, had risked imprisonment and even death to establish constitutional government, was now at this very time—secretly receiving heavy bribes. When, at the downfall of the monarchy a few years later, the famous iron chest of the Tuileries was opened, there were found evidences that, in this carnival of inflation and corruption, he had been a regularly paid servant of the Royal court.

The artful plundering of the people at large was bad enough, but worse still was this growing corruption in official and legislative circles. Out of the speculating and gambling of the inflation period grew luxury, and, out of this, corruption.

Trust in politicians and the media declines.

The artful plundering of the people at large was bad enough, but worse still was this growing corruption in official and legislative circles. Out of the speculating and gambling of the inflation period grew luxury, and, out of this, corruption. It grew as naturally as a fungus on a muck heap. It was first felt in business operations, but soon began to be seen in the legislative body and in journalism.

Like in Zimbabwe the Speculators realize they should borrow to buy assets.

As manufacturers had closed, wages had fallen, until all that kept them up seemed to be the fact that so many laborers were drafted off into the army. From this state of things came grievous wrong and gross fraud. Men who had foreseen these results and had gone into debt were of course jubilant. He who in 1790 had borrowed 10,000 francs could pay his debts in 1796 for about 35 francs.

The rise of the Debtor Class

There appeared, as another outgrowth of this disease, what has always been seen under similar circumstances. It is a result of previous, and a cause of future evils. This outgrowth was a vast debtor class in the nation, directly interested in the depreciation of the currency in which they were to pay their debts. This body of debtors soon saw, of course, that their interest was to depreciate the currency in which their debts were to be paid; and these were speedily joined by a far more influential class; by that class whose speculative tendencies had been stimulated by the abundance of paper money, and who had gone largely into debt, looking for a rise in nominal values.

The Debtor Class become celebrities and mix with the politicians.

Soon demagogues of the viler sort in the political clubs began to pander to it; a little later important persons in this debtor class were to be found intriguing in the Assembly—first in its seats and later in more conspicuous places of public trust.

Before long, the debtor class became a powerful body extending through all ranks of society. From the stock-gambler who sat in the Assembly to the small land speculator in the rural districts; from the sleek inventor of canards on the Paris Exchange to the lying stock-jobber in the market town, all pressed vigorously for new issues of paper; all were apparently able to demonstrate to the people that in new issues of paper lay the only chance for national prosperity.

J0H10R Washington, DC, USA. 12th Apr, 2017. Laurence “Larry” Fink, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BlackRock, Inc., speaks during an Economic Club of Washington event in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2017. Credit: Kristoffer Tripplaar/Alamy Live News

This great debtor class, relying on the multitude who could be approached by superficial arguments, soon gained control. Strange as it might seem to those who have not watched the same causes at work at a previous period in France and at various times in other countries, while every issue of paper money really made matters worse, a superstition gained ground among the people at large that, if only enough paper money were issued and were more cunningly handled the poor would be made rich. Henceforth all opposition was futile.

As the wealth disparity increases there are calls to expropriate wealth from the rich.

But now another source of wealth was opened to the nation. There came a confiscation of the large estates of landed proprietors who had fled the country. An estimate in 1793 made the value of these estates three billions of francs.

and on June 22, 1793, the Convention determined that there should be a Forced Loan, secured on the confiscated lands of the emigrants and levied upon all married men with incomes of ten thousand francs, and upon all un- married men with incomes of six thousand francs. It was calculated that these would bring into the treasury a thousand millions of francs.

As daily goods get too expensive, people start to loot the stores.

Marat declared loudly that the people, by hanging shopkeepers and plundering stores, could easily remove the trouble. The result was that on the 28th of February, 1793, at eight o’clock in the evening, a mob of men and women in disguise began plundering the stores and shops of Paris. At first they demanded only bread; soon they insisted on coffee and rice and sugar; at last they seized everything on which they could lay their hands—cloth, clothing, groceries and luxuries of every kind. Two hundred such places were plundered. This was endured for six hours and finally order was restored only by a grant of seven million francs to buy off the mob.

Politicians and financiers start to think they can solve everything by issuing more debt. It’s not necessary to balance budgets or pay for spending through taxes (which would be unpopular).

And now was seen, taking possession of the nation, that idea which developed so easily out of the fiat money system the idea that the ordinary needs of government may be legitimately met wholly by the means of paper currency; that taxes may be dispensed with. As a result, it was found that the assignat printing press was the one resource left to the government, and the increase in the volume of paper money became every day more appalling.

It’s natural to think the financiers in 1789 France must not have known what they were doing or been uneducated, but they were actually some of the brightest in Europe.

All this vast chapter in financial folly is sometimes referred to as if it resulted from the direct action of men utterly unskilled in finance. This is a grave error. That wild schemers and dreamers took a leading part in setting the fiat money system going is true; that speculation and interested financiers made it worse is also true: but the men who had charge of French finance during the Reign of Terror and who made these experiments, which seem to us so monstrous, in order to rescue themselves and their country from the flood which was sweeping everything to financial ruin were universally recognized as among the most skillful and honest financiers in Europe.

Smart speculators buy up the personal property of the working class.

The hopes of many were revived by the fact that in spite of the decline of paper there was an exceedingly brisk trade in all kinds of permanent property. Whatever articles of permanent value certain needy people were willing to sell certain cunning people were willing to buy and to pay good prices for in assignats.

At this, hope revived for a time in certain quarters. But ere long it was discovered that this was one of the most distressing results of a natural law which is sure to come into play under such circumstances. It was simply a feverish activity caused by the intense desire of a large number of the shrewder class to convert their paper money into anything and everything which they could hold and hoard until the collapse which they foresaw should take place. This very activity in business simply indicated the disease. It was simply legal robbery of the more enthusiastic and trusting by the more cold-hearted and keen. It was the “unloading” of the assignats upon the mass of the people.

An enormous wealth disparity develops between those who saw what was happening and levered up to purchase more assets, and those who didn’t.

The question will naturally be asked, On whom did this vast depreciation mainly fall at last? When this currency had sunk to about one three-hundredth part of its nominal value and, after that, to nothing, in whose hands was the bulk of it? The answer is simple.

Financiers and men of large means were shrewd enough to put as much of their property as possible into objects of permanent value. The working classes had no such foresight or skill or means. On them finally came the great crushing weight of the loss. After the first collapse came up the cries of the starving.

Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances 2022.

Those are some of the key warning signs from Fiat Money Inflation in France, and I recommend reading the whole story, but as I said… it’s not something we need to worry about.

Have a good weekend.

This graphic illustrates the history of the U.S. federal minimum wage using data compiled by Statista, in both nominal and real (inflation-adjusted) terms. The federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25 per hour in July 2009, where it has remained ever since.

Nominal vs. Real Value

The data Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu used to create this graphic can be found in the table below.

What our graphic shows is how inflation has eroded the real value of the U.S. minimum wage over time, despite nominal increases.

For instance, consider the year 1960, when the federal minimum wage was $1 per hour. After accounting for inflation, this would be worth around $10.28 today!

The two lines converge at 2023 because the nominal and real value are identical in present day terms.

Many States Have Their Own Minimum Wage

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 30 states and Washington, D.C. have implemented a minimum wage that is higher than $7.25.

The following states have adopted the federal minimum: Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Meanwhile, the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee have no wage minimums, but have to follow the federal minimum.

How Does the U.S. Minimum Wage Rank Globally?

If you found this topic interesting, check out Mapped: Minimum Wage Around the World to see which countries have the highest minimum wage in monthly terms, as of January 2023.

By Noi Mahoney of FreightWaves

The collapse of Maryland’s Francis Scott Key Bridge Tuesday after it was struck by a cargo ship continues to block access to the Port of Baltimore and could disrupt shipping flows across the U.S.

The Singapore-flagged MV Dali container ship collided with the bridge around 1:35 a.m. on Tuesday. At least six people remain unaccounted for, CNN reports. With rescue and recovery operations ongoing, it’s unclear how long debris from the bridge will block the Patapsco River, which leads to the Port of Baltimore.

For the shipping community, the accident will affect maritime lanes as carriers must seek alternative ports of call while the collapsed bridge continues to block the river, experts said.

“Are any container vessels currently trapped in the bay? That is question No. 1,” Sanne Manders, president of international at Flexport, told FreightWaves. “Right now, there are two vessels trapped: the ship that caused the collision and another general cargo container vessel that is currently trapped.”

The Port of Baltimore is the deepest harbor in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay, with five public and 12 private terminals. The port administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Port officials posted on social media that they do not know how long ship traffic in and out of the port will be suspended, although trucks are still being processed.

Manders said another important consideration is the scores of commercial vessels that regularly call at the Port of Baltimore.

“In the next few weeks, 107 vessels will not be able to call that port and will have to divert to other ports,” Manders said. “The question is, are other ports able to absorb that capacity? The reality is that Baltimore is an important port, but for containerized trade, it is relatively small.”

In 2023, the Port of Baltimore handled $80.8 billion in trade, including 1.1 million twenty-foot equivalent units, 1.3 million tons of roll-on/roll-off farm and construction machinery, 11.7 million tons of general cargo, and 847,158 shipments of cars and light trucks.

A number of major companies have distribution warehouses and other facilities at or near the port, including Amazon, FedEx and BMW.

In Maryland, most of the freight is regional, with about 36% of trucking tender volume staying in the state. An additional 22% goes to Pennsylvania and 15% goes to Virginia.

Rachel Shames, vice president of pricing and procurement for CV International, a Norfolk, Virginia-based international logistics and transportation company, wrote in a market update that the collision is expected to create a temporary increase in cargo volume at other East Coast ports.

“The full impacts of this disaster are not yet known, but it’s likely that nearby East Coast ports, including Norfolk, Philadelphia, New York and others will absorb cargo traffic from Baltimore in the short term,” Shames wrote. “This sudden increase in volume may strain operations at other ports.”

Manders said what makes the Port of Baltimore unique is the volume of roll-on/roll-off cargo it handles, such as passenger vehicles, along with agricultural and industrial equipment.

“Then you’re also getting into agricultural exports — rice, sugar, fertilizers, forestry products. It’s pretty big in Baltimore. Then there’s also a big paper industry there and construction materials,” Manders said. “I do think in other commodities and cars, this will have a major impact. There are also some metal exchange warehouses for nickel, tin and copper in Baltimore. Now those can also be moved to other ports, but those are bulky materials, and they don’t move them very easily.”

Jeff Leppert, executive vice president of modal operations at Redwood Logistics, said some of the company’s shipper customers have several ships currently stuck at the port.

“Other impacts include the Port of Baltimore’s fueling depot, which is currently unable to take fueling shipments for the near future,” Leppert told FreightWaves. “The stretch of I-695 that collapsed with the bridge is the only hazmat-approved bridge in the area, so those shipments will have a large diversion in the region and beyond.”

He said all deep-water ships, vessels with a controlling depth of 50 feet, will have to be diverted to ports such as Norfolk and New York/NewJersey.

“We are currently working with all of our shipping customers to find solutions now and for the coming months,” Leppert said.

The Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. are two of the Port of Baltimore’s largest shipping lines. Neither company immediately responded to a request for comment from FreightWaves.

Paul Brashier, vice president of drayage and intermodal at ITS Logistics, said the priority right now is to ensure clients are making plans for containers that were originally routed to Baltimore.

“These shipments will be discharged to other ports on the Eastern Seaboard,” Brashier said. “This also means that we must prepare trucking and transload capacity to be able to transport the impacted freight to the appropriate initial location.”

The Cold War fought via clandestine operations with boots on the ground and proxy conflicts between parties backed by the U.S., China or Russia might be a thing of the past, but the times of bloc-based warfare are far from over.

Now, as Statista’s Flrian Zandt reports, a majority of the theaters of war have become digital, with state-sponsored or -affiliated groups conducting cyber warfare against targets in various sectors.

You will find more infographics at Statista

According to a recent Reuters report, United States and United Kingdom officials imposed sanctions against the hacking group Advanced Persistent Threat 31 and indicted seven of its members on Monday, citing a “decade-plus spying spree [compromising] defense contractors, dissidents and a variety of U.S. companies, including American steel, energy, and apparel firms.”

The group is allegedly linked to the Chinese government, which refuted the claims made by U.S. and U.K. authorities. Apart from China, such allegations are mostly aimed at Russian and North Korean groups, many of the latter of which have also been connected to crypto heists reportedly funding the nation’s nuclear program.

As data from the open-access database of the European Repository of Cyber Incidents shows, the sector most targeted by malevolent actors, according to reports by either victims, attackers, authorities, security companies, media or third parties is critical infrastructure. In 2023 alone, 500 incidents involving industries like energy, telecommunications, transport or health were entered into the database, followed by attacks on state institutions or political systems (376) and corporate targets (113).

Overall, the EuRepoC recorded 895 cyber operations in 2023, with many of said operations involving more than one incident. As of March 26, 171 cyberoperations reported in 2024 are found in EuRepoC’s database, with 89 incidents connected to critical infrastructure and 82 to state institutions or political systems, including on ministries, civil services or the police.

While cyberattacks on regular companies can, at most, lead to financial harm or data on their inner workings being exposed, attacks on power stations, the energy grid or telecommunications networks could potentially evolve into a national security threat. This makes cybersecurity not only necessary but a lucrative and competitive market. According to estimates by various sources like our Statista Market Insights and the IDC, the worldwide estimated cybersecurity spend for 2023 ranged somewhere between $160 and $220 billion, with the market poised to grow significantly in the next three to five years.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The EU never enforced its Growth and Stability Pact or Maastricht Treaty rules. The crisis is coming to a head with France and Italy in the spotlight. The first casualty will be Green policy.

Image composite by Mish from the European Commission Compliance Tracker

Compliance Rules

1. Deficit rule: a country is compliant if (i) the budget balance of general government is equal or larger than -3% of GDP or, (ii) in case the -3% of GDP threshold is breached, the deviation remains small (max 0.5% of GDP) and limited to one year.

2. Debt rule: a country is compliant if the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is below 60% of GDP or if the excess above 60% of GDP has been declining by 1/20 on average over the past three years.

3. Structural balance rule: a country is compliant if (i) the structural budget balance of general government is at or above the medium-term objective (MTO) or, (ii) in case the MTO has not been reached yet, the annual improvement of the structural balance is equal or higher than 0.5% of GDP, or the remaining distance to the MTO is smaller than 0.5% of GDP.

4. Expenditure rule: a country is complaint if the annual rate of growth of primary government expenditure, net of discretionary revenue measures and one-offs, is at or below the 10-year average of the nominal rate of potential output growth minus the convergence margin necessary to ensure an adjustment of the structural budget deficit in line with the structural balance rule.   

Deficit Disaster Zones

France and Italy are major disasters right now on the budget deficit rule. France has a budget deficit of 7 percent and Italy 5 percent.

France needs to reduce its deficit by a whopping 4 percent of GDP!

Neither Italy nor Greece should never have been allowed in the EMU (European Monetary Union – Eurozone) in the first place.

Greece has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 170 percent. The target is 60 percent.

But the lead chart tells the picture. Only the Scandinavian countries are in compliance.

Looser Rules Postpone the Crisis

On February 10, the EU agreed to Looser Fiscal Rules to Cut Debt, Boost Investments.

The latest revamp of two-decades-old rules known as the Stability and Growth Pact came after some EU countries racked up record high debt as they increased spending to help their economies recover from the pandemic, and as the bloc announced ambitious green, industrial and defense goals.

The revised rules allow countries with excessive borrowing to reduce their debt on average by 1% per year if it is above 90% of gross domestic product (GDP), and by 0.5% per year on average if the debt pile is between 60% and 90% of GDP.

Countries with a deficit above 3% of GDP are required to halve this to 1.5% during periods of growth, creating a safety buffer for tough times ahead.

Defense spending will be taken into account when the Commission assesses a country’s high deficit, a consideration triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The new rules give countries seven years, up from four previously, to cut debt and deficit starting from 2025.

Note that the EU can tweak enforcement but not the baseline Stability and Growth Pact targets themselves without unanimous agreement, and a new treaty.

With that background, let’s look ahead to the crisis that looms as described by Eurointelligence.

Europe’s Next Financial Crisis

We would like to alert our readers to a theme that has been preoccupying us for a while – the possibility of another financial crisis in Europe. We have generally been restrained in our warning of financial crises. The main exception was the global financial crisis and its cousin, the euro area’s sovereign debt crisis. Fifteen or so years later, we see another financial crisis ahead here in Europe: a crisis of the European social and political model with deep consequences for fiscal and financial stability.

The canary in the coalmine is the overshooting budget deficits in France and Italy, at over 7% and over 5% for 2024 respectively. These numbers are a symptom, not a cause. Behind them lies a lack of economic growth needed to sustain Europe’s social model. Germany’s fiscal policy could not be more different than that of France or Italy, and yet Germany is afflicted by the exact same problem.

The European model was powered by oligopolistic industrial companies, which were heavily supported by the state through regulation that tilted the level-playing field in their favor. The German car industry is a classic example, but everybody did this.

What is killing this model now is a shift in technology and geopolitical fragmentation. Of the two, we would argue the first is the more important. More and more functions in our lives that were previously the realm of purely mechanical processes are nowadays wholly or partially digitalized. Barriers of entry have collapsed. China went from zero to the world leader in electric cars.

European companies no longer generate sufficient profits to fuel the social model – and to fund long-term research. It is no surprise that Europe has only very few tech companies. In short, Europe’s oligopolistic old-tech model no longer works in a digital world. We have been reporting on the attempts by the EU to stem against technological developments through regulation. But this is a way of addressing symptoms, not causes.

After the multiple global shocks of this decade, the consequences of Europe’s technological decline translate into lower potential growth rates. Italy came first. Its productivity growth has been near zero since it joined the euro. The UK’s productivity growth slumped after the global financial crisis, and never recovered since. Germany’s productivity growth is unlikely to recover, even if the economic cycle does. The German Council of Economic Experts see a potential growth of around 0.5% until the end of the decade. With productivity growth that low, Europe’s model has become financially unsustainable. It is unsurprising that the political system is fragmenting everywhere. The argument for sustained deficits, in France for example, is that you need them to keep Marine Le Pen out of power. This means they will persist.

We have a fiscal crisis ahead, caused by a combination of falling productivity growth and political gridlock. Technology is the main cause of the decline. Geopolitics is what accelerated it. The solutions we have been advocating over the years – a joint fiscal capacity, a capital markets union, joint defense procurement to neutralize the rise in defense spending – are further away than ever. Unless one of these parameters change, a financial crisis is a very plausible scenario. 

Spotlight France

France has a budget deficit of 7 percent but wants to fund a European army to fight Russia.

How is that supposed to work?

Spotlight Green Fantasies

The EU has adopted ambitious Green policies that will cost much more money than has been budgeted.

How is that supposed to work?

Targets Won’t Be Met

You can take those Green targets and throw then into the ashcan of ideas that never should have been set in the first place.

Even if you give France 7 years to be deficit compliant, how is France supposed to cut back a whopping 4 percent of GDP?

What’s the Basic Problem?

Eurointelligence says “Technology is the main cause of the decline. Geopolitics is what accelerated it.”

Technology is not the problem. The Maastricht treaty that created the Eurozone is flawed. And it cannot be fixed without unanimous agreement.

Given productivity and work rule differences, one interest rate set by the ECB cannot serve Italy, France, Greece, and Germany.

Add to that, EU nannycrat rules. The EU is more interested in cracking down on Google (Now Alphabet GOOG), Apple (AAPL), Facebook (now Meta Platforms META), and Microsoft (MSFT) for alleged monopolies than developing anything.

The EU Is Dysfunctional

In a single word, the EU is dysfunctional. That’s the problem, not technology. The Maastricht treaty itself is a big part of the reason the EU is dysfunctional. The Euro itself, with one common interest rate, is fundamentally flawed.

Companies like Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Apple could not exist in the EU because in the name of competition and diversity, the EU would kill them before they ever got big enough to matter.

EU rules make it impossible to fix the basic problem. So the EU has resorted to nannycrat rules to regulate US and Chinese companies instead of fixing anything.

Technology, including AI, and geopolitics is now accelerating the basic problem, the EU is dysfunctional by treaty. It’s showing up in polls everywhere.

European Parliament Polls in France

EP France Polls from Wikipedia

Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is clobbering Renew/Modem by a whopping 12 percentage points, 30-18.

This chart is for France only, not the entire parliament, but it reflects on French President Emmanuel Macron’s sinking popularity and the sinking centrists in general.

A War Economy

As a way to create jobs, EC President Charles Michel promotes a war economy.

In a preposterous proposal to deal with growth, The European Council President Calls on Europe to Switch to a War Economy

I have a suggestion. Let US senator Lindsey Graham and EC president Charles Michel lead the charge.

Instead of fixing Germany’s aging infrastructure, attempting to compete with the US on AI, or competing with China on anything, EC President Charles Michel promotes war as growth.

It’s Time for a New Strategy

Please note German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is refusing to send Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine.

On March 16, I commented Ukraine Won’t Win the War, It’s Time for a New Strategy

There’s Solidarity, Then There’s Solidarity

Poll after poll shows support for Ukraine. Every one of then is flawed because they fail to ask “how much are you willing to pay.”

There’s solidarity in the EU, but it stops with wheat and weapons. In the US, Biden is desperate for the war to go on. But he still has no goal. Is Biden’s goal the same as Zelensky’s: “The war will not be over as long as Crimea is occupied.”

We don’t know because Biden won’t say. Biden also will not say how much he is willing to commit. Is it another $150 billion or is it $1 trillion or more?

Meanwhile, prepare for carnage of the center, Greens, and warmongers in the next European Parliament elections.

A fiscal crisis awaits. The first casualty will be Green energy policies.

EpiPens are auto-injectors containing epinephrine, a drug that can treat or reverse severe allergic reactions, potentially preventing death.

The global epinephrine market was valued at $1.75 billion in 2022 and is projected to reach $4.08 billion by 2030. North America represents over 60% of the market.

EpiPens, however, can be prohibitively expensive in some regions.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu presents estimated EpiPen prices in major global markets, compiled by World Population Review and converted to U.S. dollars as of August 2023.

Why are U.S. Prices so High?

The U.S. stands out as the most expensive market for EpiPens, despite over 1 million Americans having epinephrine prescriptions. After Mylan (now part of Pfizer) acquired the rights to produce EpiPens in the U.S. in 2007, the cost of a two-pack skyrocketed to $600, up from about $60.

*Per unit cost. Commonly sold as a two-pack, meaning total cost is equal to $600

Former Mylan CEO Heather Bresch defended the price hikes to Congress, citing minimal profit margins. Mylan eventually settled with the U.S. government for a nine-figure sum.

Notably, EpiPens are available at a fraction of the cost in other developed countries like Japan, Germany, and Canada.

Making EpiPens More Affordable

Efforts to improve EpiPen affordability are underway in several U.S. states. For instance, the Colorado House approved a $60 price cap on epinephrine, now under review by the state Senate.

Similar measures in Rhode Island, Delaware, Missouri, and Vermont aim to ensure insurance coverage for epinephrine, which is not currently mandatory, although most health plans cover it.

Authored by John Cody via ReMix News,

Following a long legal battle, Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), has released the confidential protocols that show the RKI was aware that “lockdowns cause more harm than good” and evidence for “making masks mandatory was lacking.”

The RKI voiced concerns in 2020 that shutting down German society could lead to increased child mortality and other negative outcomes. The RKI experts also disagreed with the implementation of FFP2 face masks, saying there was a lack of data to support such a measure.

“Active communication would make sense in order to make clear why the RKI does not recommend this measure,” notes the minute regarding implementing FFP2 mask regulations. The agency even notes in the minutes that it would tell the public it did not support FFP2 mask regulations, but notably, the agency never did so despite mass protests against mandatory masks and other harsh measures.

The 2,500 pages of documents also contain a passage noting that experts warned that lockdowns could “do more harm than good,” with experts citing lockdowns in Africa and the negative outcomes seen there.

The documents have revealed that German politicians dramatized the situation, contrary to the opinions of experts. This was done presumably in order to implement coercive measures and restrict basic rights. There are now calls to release the rest of the documents, as more than a thousand passages are still redacted, representing a third of the total text dating from meeting notes from the “crisis unit” taken between February 2020 and April 2021.

The release of the documents has sent shockwaves through Germany and led even left-wing parties, such as the Greens, to call for a “comprehensive review” of coronavirus policy. Other parties, like the Alternative for Germany (AfD), are calling for more action, including a commission investigation.

Politicians are urging the RKI to lift the redactions and make all findings available to the public, and further court proceedings are pending. In the meantime, debate continues to rage, with the #RKIFiles tag on X already generating 45,000 posts.

An example of just a couple of posts shows the anger many Germans still feel towards the coronavirus-era policies put in place.

“The Bavarian state government tortured children with masks until spring 2022 — even in physical education classes. Not because there was scientific evidence for it, but because Markus Söder liked the role of coronavirus hardliner. #RKIFiles,” wrote one X user.

Another showed video of police brutalizing protesters demonstrating against Covid-19 measures, writing:

“It’s good that the RKI protocols are included in the broader discussion! But there can be no such thing as cheap forgiveness. With the coronavirus, 2/3 of Germans became massively aggressive against 1/3. The handcuffs must click on the main criminals.”

Gut, dass die #RKIProtokolle in die breitere Diskussion gelangen!
Aber billiges Verzeihen darf es nicht geben.
Bei Corona sind 2/3 der Deutschen gegen 1/3 massiv übergriffig geworden.
Bei den Hauptverbrechern müssen die Handschellen klicken!#RKIFiles pic.twitter.com/Eo8lKTWVko

— SIGGI (@SiegmundFrei) March 25, 2024

Virologist reacts to report

Virologist Klaus Stöhr, once the WHO pandemic commissioner, said the revealed protocols once again show that the “risk assessment was not based on data.” According to Stöhr, “his hair stood on end when it came to (Germany’s) pandemic plan.”

Stöhr also commented on the fact that the RKI protocols uncovered that experts were telling the government that there is little data to support widespread mask adoption for the public.

“And the fact that what was known about FFP2 masks was completely ignored is just two small building blocks.” There was “a lot more data available where it was seen that the work was not based on evidence,” he said.

The scientist referred to “curfews, border closures, 2G/3G (areas restricted based on vaccination status), and the side effects of lockdowns” as further examples of this. Stöhr noted that “these are all things that were known – including that the vaccines could not halt the spread of the virus.” He said that the vaccines could not end the pandemic, and it was “clear from the beginning that the vaccine couldn’t do that.”

He is now calling for a commission or review process to avoid the mistakes made by the government during the Covid-19 era in the future.

Virologist Hendrik Streeck, who was appointed to the RKI expert council, also stated: “I’m very surprised that entire pages about vaccinations, for example, were blacked out,” he said to Welt. “And I wonder what it says, why the public shouldn’t see it.”

Lauterbach in panic mode?

Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) reacted with horror to the findings in the report. As federal health minister during a significant portion of the pandemic, he has often been the top target of criticism from those opposed to Germany’s Covid-19 policies.

“Enlightenment is good, but we must not allow conspiracy theories to arise on social media through the interference of foreign governments,” he wrote on the X platform. Why he referred to “foreign governments” remained unclear, but when cornered, left-wing politicians often resort to claims of “foreign interference” and “Russia.”

Despite calls for a review of policy, Lauterbach is desperate to avoid this outcome and is also openly rejecting a commission, as the AfD and BSW parties are calling for.

Lauterbach claims this would only benefit “a small group of politicians, but also people who perhaps represent radical ideas in other areas.” He claims they would use the findings “to politicize against the state.”

Some from the Greens also resorted to claims of “foreign influence” following the release of the RKI protocols.

Green health politician Janosch Dahmen, one of the most aggressive supporters of extreme Covid-19 policies, said: “It seems to me that the virulent spread of such untruthful rumors is also the result of the influence of foreign intelligence services on our society against the background of Russia’s war against Ukraine, to further divide and render politics incapable of action.”

The AfD, FDP and BSW want an investigation

The AfD, Free Democrats and BSW parties all want a more thorough investigation than a simple “review.”

“The public has a right to know what really happened back then,” said the health policy spokesman for the AfD parliamentary group, Martin Sichert, regarding the redactions still in the report. He appealed to the other parliamentary groups: “Take a look at the protocols of the RKI crisis team and set up a coronavirus investigation committee with us.”

Even the FDP, which is in a governing coalition with the ruling government, is calling for a more thorough investigation. FDP vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki announced that he would “work to ensure that the entire basis for decision-making at this time becomes public.” He also said it is becoming increasingly clear “that the Robert Koch Institute for Health Policy served as a scientific façade for former Minister Jens Spahn and probably also Karl Lauterbach.”

Some Greens are conciliatory

Some left-wing politicians believe some kind of review is necessary to improve “social cohesion.”

“It would be good for social cohesion if there were a review of coronavirus policy with a little distance,” said the Green parliamentary group’s legal policy spokesperson, Helge Limburg, to Welt newspaper. “This could be a commission of inquiry, a commission of experts, or another form of debate that signals to people: We are not simply brushing aside the drastic measures of that time.”

Health and budget politician Paula Piechotta said: “Almost exactly four years after the first pandemic measures were introduced in Germany, it is now overdue to address the mistakes of pandemic policy in a wide range of areas, from health and education to financial policy, in a transparent and timely manner for everyone.”

Her party colleague, Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, also said a review of the coronavirus era was necessary but was short on specifics.

“We should now initiate a phase in which we reflect on the difficult pandemic period with all its effects,” he told the Bild newspaper. The German government at the time had to make far-reaching decisions quickly in an unprecedented situation during the pandemic.

“Certainly mistakes were made, but it would also have been a mistake not to make a decision,” he continued. “I think we should have the courage to learn the lessons, review processes, and evaluate the impact.”

In retrospect, it is fair to ask “whether the advisory bodies for politicians really covered the diversity of perspectives in science,” said Green MP Dieter Janecek. “For example, some encroachments on fundamental rights were certainly questionable: Unvaccinated people were not allowed into restaurants or swimming pools, even though it was already clear that the vaccine did not prevent transmission. Children and young people were unduly disadvantaged.”

Read more here…

According to the Global Terrorism Index 2024, a report by the Institute for Economics and Peace measuring the impact of terrorism around the world, deaths from terrorism rose to 8,352 globally in 2023, marking a 22 percent increase from the previous year.

However, as Statista’s Felix Richter notes, that increase came despite a 23 percent drop in terrorist attacks, with fell to 3,350 in 2023. At the same time, terrorism has become more concentrated, as the number of countries recording at least one death from terrorism fell to 41 in 2023, down from 57 in 2015, when deaths from terrorism peaked. Last year, 10 countries accounted for 87 percent of global deaths from terrorism, with Burkina Faso, Israel and Mali alone accounting for more than 45 percent of fatalities.

This infographic, based on the ‘Global Terrorism Index 2024’, provides an overview of how much different countries and regions have been affected by terrorism over the past five years.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The Institute for Economics and Peace takes four indicators into account: the number of terrorist attacks as well as the number of fatalities, injuries and hostages taken in such attacks. It looks at a five-year period, whereby recent incidents are weighted more strongly than those further in the past.

Interestingly, the 2024 index marks the first time in the report’s 13-year history that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have been top of the list.

Instead, Burkina Faso is now the country most severely impacted by terrorism, which is indicative of a broader trend, which saw the epicenter of terrorism shift from the Middle East into Sub-Saharan Africa, with Mali, Niger and Nigeria also high on the list.

Authored by Drieu Godefrei via The Gatestone Institute,

In a preparatory impact report, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times before official release, the European Commission estimates that to achieve the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 then 100% in 2050 — the main objective of the “European Green Deal” — Europe will need to invest €1.5 trillion a year from 2031 to 2050.

1.5 trillion euros a year. That is equivalent to 10% of the Europe Union’s entire GDP for 2022 — every year! Apart from a war effort, there is no objective of any kind that has ever required the diversion of 10% of a continent’s GDP by political decree.

The new German utopia

This number shows us that, while Germany has had to give up imposing its hatred of nuclear power on its European partners, it is determined to inflict on Europe the rest of the environmental utopia, i.e. total decarbonization, even at the cost of economic collapse and freedoms.

You may say that the European Commission is not Germany, but anyone who has worked in the Commission will tell you that there are two insurmountable lobbies at this level: Germany, by far is the most powerful country in Europe, followed by the environmental NGOs, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, which have permanent offices in the Berlaymont, the headquarters building of the European Commission. The fact that the current president of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is German is just the icing on the apfelstrudel.

All the same, everything in this delirious report by the German Commission is wrong.

The Commission’s pseudo-savvy calculations

The report states that the cost of inaction would be much higher than €1.5 trillion a year. In fact, explains the report, the European plan will save up to 1% of GDP per year. It should be noted, however, that this figure runs counter to all the IPCC’s projections on the cost of global warming — which is 0.03 % of GDP per year, not 1%.

Annex 8 of the impact report just published by the Commission states:

“The IPCC AR6 Working Group II report (2022) confirms that global aggregate economic impacts generally increase with higher degree of global warming. However, due to the wide range of damage estimates and lack of comparability between methodologies, the report does not provide a robust range of estimates but recognizes that global aggregate economic impacts could be higher than estimated in the previous report.”

In short, the IPCC’s sixth report states that the cost of global warming could actually be greater than that stated in the fifth report.

Unfortunately (for lack of time? space? ink?) the Commission does not bother to reiterate what was said in the fifth report, which was voluble and precise on the question of the cost of global warming. Let us make up for this shortcoming: according to the fifth IPCC report AR5, chapter 10:

“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers… Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices… and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”

Above all, the Paris Agreement, of which the Commission claims to be part, aimed to limit global warming to only 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. Achieving this objective presupposed a drastic global reduction in human greenhouse global gas emissions, not just Europe. However, since 2015, these global emissions have continued to rise, and there is no realistic scenario in which global emissions will decrease. China, which still builds roughly two new coal-power plants a week, and India continue to lay waste to these projections.

Climate, of course, is a global issue: if Europe reduces its emissions to zero, while the rest of the world continues to increase them, the effect on the climate will be zero. As a result, the German plan will not save a single euro in terms of the damage caused by global warming and extreme events.

So, the investment needed each year would not be €1.5 trillion invested to save 0.03% of GDP per year. It would be €30 trillion — €1.5 trillion per year for 20 years — invested to change absolutely nothing in the climate of Europe.

There are no serious analysts left who still maintain that the objective of the Paris Agreement will be achieved; the Paris Agreement is obsolete and to pretend otherwise, as the European Commission is doing, is misleading, irresponsible, and not even scientific.

In addition, the report goes on to say that reducing European imports of fossil fuels would result in savings of up to €2.8 trillion between 2031 and 2050. At present there is no technical or scientific way of overcoming the intermittent nature of renewable energies such as wind, solar. As a result, Europe’s energy mix will have to continue to rely on fossil fuels in addition to nuclear power, as demonstrated by Germany, the champion of lignite coal and CO2 emissions – and releasing ten times more CO2 than France, per unit of energy produced — in 2024. What is more, this pseudo-savvy calculation presupposes that we know the prices of oil and gas in advance, and that we persist in banning the exploitation of the shale gas that lies beneath Europe’s soil.

The report by the European Commission shows a frightening headlong rush. The situation in Europe is already dramatic. Since 2008, American GDP has doubled, meaning that Americans earn twice as much as they did in 2008. Since 2008, Europe’s GDP has stagnated. This means that Europeans are increasingly taxed and harassed, and forbidden to move, build, undertake, innovate and start a family as they see fit, while their incomes are not increasing.

The shale revolution means that America now could be the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, if President Joe Biden had not hobbled domestic energy production on his first day in office. The beneficiaries of his move were Russia, Iran — and China, which can now more easily sell its cheap coal, thereby polluting the climate even more.

“Meanwhile,” according to Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator of the Financial Times, “energy prices in Europe have soared.”

“The Ukraine war and the loss of cheap Russian gas mean that European industry typically pays three or four times as much for energy as their American competitors. Gloomy European bosses say this is already leading to factory closures in Europe”.

In practical terms, whole swathes of our populations have entered into a pattern that is the ultimate dream of environmentalists: degrowth. In other words, their impoverishment. Giorgos Kallis, a prominent figure in the field of environmental economics, asserted recently the necessity of adopting a “degrowth” paradigm over the conventional GDP-based model. He contends that economies can and must thrive while simultaneously diminishing inequality and enhancing overall well-being.

Scenarios

Three possible scenarios emerge.

• In the first scenario, the EU will persist in its German ecological utopia, which will throw the whole of Europe even more deeply into the recession in which Germany is already languishing. In the context of its current economic stagnation, Europe cannot afford to divert 10% of its GDP per year to unaffordable, unreliable and intermittent energy sources. Popular revolts will multiply, making the current farmers’ revolt look like “Pat the Bunny.” It should be obvious that our democracies will not be able to withstand the impoverishment deliberately organized by “elites” who have gone mad trying to promote an insufficiently substantiated green ideology.

• In the second scenario, the EU would not undo the “European Green Deal,” but its entry into force would simply be rescheduled (meaning postponed). This scenario condemns Europe to what economists Lawrence Summers and Henri Lepage name “secular stagnation,” a condition when there is negligible or no economic growth in a market-based economy, on the model of Japan.

• A third scenario would see a new majority come to power through the European elections in June — after all, what is the point of democratic elections if not to allow a change of course? — and deconstruct (repeal) every piece of legislation in a European Green Deal that has become irrelevant or economically harmful to the most destitute among us in the current global context.

Ironically, if the IPCC’s projections are to be believed, global warming may occur, and we will adapt to it through innovation. All the resources that Europe is burning up in a phantasmatic “energy transition”, which has failed and will fail — will just burn through money that we will then not have for innovation. What will Europe do when these misguided ideologies have permanently broken the back of its economy?

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“In these days of worldwide confusion, there is a dire need for men and women who will courageously do battle for truth.”

– Martin Luther King Jr.

When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.

In the current governmental climate, obeying one’s conscience and speaking truth to the power of the police state can easily render you an “enemy of the state.”

The government’s list of so-called “enemies of the state” is growing by the day.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is merely one of the most visible victims of the police state’s war on dissidents and whistleblowers.

Five years ago, on April 11, 2019, police arrested Assange for daring to access and disclose military documents that portray the U.S. government and its endless wars abroad as reckless, irresponsible, immoral and responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

Included among the leaked materials was gunsight video footage from two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground attacks while American air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children, who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S. forces, suffered serious injuries.

There is nothing defensible about crimes such as these perpetrated by the government.

When any government becomes almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting—whether that evil takes the form of war, terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity—that government has lost its claim to legitimacy.

These are hard words, but hard times require straight-talking.

It is easy to remain silent in the face of evil.

What is harder—what we lack today and so desperately need—are those with moral courage who will risk their freedoms and lives in order to speak out against evil in its many forms.

Throughout history, individuals or groups of individuals have risen up to challenge the injustices of their age. Nazi Germany had its Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The gulags of the Soviet Union were challenged by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. America had its color-coded system of racial segregation and warmongering called out for what it was, blatant discrimination and profiteering, by Martin Luther King Jr.

And then there was Jesus Christ, an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day—namely, the Roman Empire—but provided a blueprint for civil disobedience that would be followed by those, religious and otherwise, who came after him.

Indeed, it is fitting that we remember that Jesus Christ—the religious figure worshipped by Christians for his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection—paid the ultimate price for speaking out against the police state of his day.

A radical nonconformist who challenged authority at every turn, Jesus was a far cry from the watered-down, corporatized, simplified, gentrified, sissified vision of a meek creature holding a lamb that most modern churches peddle. In fact, he spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire.

Much like the American Empire today, the Roman Empire of Jesus’ day had all of the characteristics of a police state: secrecy, surveillance, a widespread police presence, a citizenry treated like suspects with little recourse against the police state, perpetual wars, a military empire, martial law, and political retribution against those who dared to challenge the power of the state.

For all the accolades poured out upon Jesus, little is said about the harsh realities of the police state in which he lived and its similarities to modern-day America, and yet they are striking.

Secrecy, surveillance and rule by the elite. As the chasm between the wealthy and poor grew wider in the Roman Empire, the ruling class and the wealthy class became synonymous, while the lower classes, increasingly deprived of their political freedoms, grew disinterested in the government and easily distracted by “bread and circuses.” Much like America today, with its lack of government transparency, overt domestic surveillance, and rule by the rich, the inner workings of the Roman Empire were shrouded in secrecy, while its leaders were constantly on the watch for any potential threats to its power. The resulting state-wide surveillance was primarily carried out by the military, which acted as investigators, enforcers, torturers, policemen, executioners and jailers. Today that role is fulfilled by the NSA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the increasingly militarized police forces across the country.

Widespread police presence. The Roman Empire used its military forces to maintain the “peace,” thereby establishing a police state that reached into all aspects of a citizen’s life. In this way, these military officers, used to address a broad range of routine problems and conflicts, enforced the will of the state. Today SWAT teams, comprised of local police and federal agents, are employed to carry out routine search warrants for minor crimes such as marijuana possession and credit card fraud.

Citizenry with little recourse against the police state. As the Roman Empire expanded, personal freedom and independence nearly vanished, as did any real sense of local governance and national consciousness. Similarly, in America today, citizens largely feel powerless, voiceless and unrepresented in the face of a power-hungry federal government. As states and localities are brought under direct control by federal agencies and regulations, a sense of learned helplessness grips the nation.

Perpetual wars and a military empire. Much like America today with its practice of policing the world, war and an over-arching militarist ethos provided the framework for the Roman Empire, which extended from the Italian peninsula to all over Southern, Western, and Eastern Europe, extending into North Africa and Western Asia as well. In addition to significant foreign threats, wars were waged against inchoate, unstructured and socially inferior foes.

Martial law. Eventually, Rome established a permanent military dictatorship that left the citizens at the mercy of an unreachable and oppressive totalitarian regime. In the absence of resources to establish civic police forces, the Romans relied increasingly on the military to intervene in all matters of conflict or upheaval in provinces, from small-scale scuffles to large-scale revolts. Not unlike police forces today, with their martial law training drills on American soil, militarized weapons and “shoot first, ask questions later” mindset, the Roman soldier had “the exercise of lethal force at his fingertips” with the potential of wreaking havoc on normal citizens’ lives.

A nation of suspects. Just as the American Empire looks upon its citizens as suspects to be tracked, surveilled and controlled, the Roman Empire looked upon all potential insubordinates, from the common thief to a full-fledged insurrectionist, as threats to its power. The insurrectionist was seen as directly challenging the Emperor.  A “bandit,” or revolutionist, was seen as capable of overturning the empire, was always considered guilty and deserving of the most savage penalties, including capital punishment. Bandits were usually punished publicly and cruelly as a means of deterring others from challenging the power of the state.  Jesus’ execution was one such public punishment.

Acts of civil disobedience by insurrectionists. Much like the Roman Empire, the American Empire has exhibited zero tolerance for dissidents such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning who exposed the police state’s seedy underbelly. Jesus was also branded a political revolutionary starting with his attack on the money chargers and traders at the Jewish temple, an act of civil disobedience at the site of the administrative headquarters of the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish council.

Military-style arrests in the dead of night. Jesus’ arrest account testifies to the fact that the Romans perceived Him as a revolutionary. Eerily similar to today’s SWAT team raids, Jesus was arrested in the middle of the night, in secret, by a large, heavily armed fleet of soldiers.  Rather than merely asking for Jesus when they came to arrest him, his pursuers collaborated beforehand with Judas. Acting as a government informant, Judas concocted a kiss as a secret identification marker, hinting that a level of deception and trickery must be used to obtain this seemingly “dangerous revolutionist’s” cooperation. 

Torture and capital punishment. In Jesus’ day, religious preachers, self-proclaimed prophets and nonviolent protesters were not summarily arrested and executed. Indeed, the high priests and Roman governors normally allowed a protest, particularly a small-scale one, to run its course. However, government authorities were quick to dispose of leaders and movements that appeared to threaten the Roman Empire. The charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King—were purely political, not religious. To the Romans, any one of these charges was enough to merit death by crucifixion, which was usually reserved for slaves, non-Romans, radicals, revolutionaries and the worst criminals.

Jesus was presented to Pontius Pilate “as a disturber of the political peace,” a leader of a rebellion, a political threat, and most gravely—a claimant to kingship, a “king of the revolutionary type.” After Jesus is formally condemned by Pilate, he is sentenced to death by crucifixion, “the Roman means of executing criminals convicted of high treason.”  The purpose of crucifixion was not so much to kill the criminal, as it was an immensely public statement intended to visually warn all those who would challenge the power of the Roman Empire. Hence, it was reserved solely for the most extreme political crimes: treason, rebellion, sedition, and banditry. After being ruthlessly whipped and mocked, Jesus was nailed to a cross.

Jesus—the revolutionary, the political dissident, and the nonviolent activist—lived and died in a police state. Any reflection on Jesus’ life and death within a police state must take into account several factors: Jesus spoke out strongly against such things as empires, controlling people, state violence and power politics. Jesus challenged the political and religious belief systems of his day. And worldly powers feared Jesus, not because he challenged them for control of thrones or government but because he undercut their claims of supremacy, and he dared to speak truth to power in a time when doing so could—and often did—cost a person his life.

Unfortunately, the radical Jesus, the political dissident who took aim at injustice and oppression, has been largely forgotten today, replaced by a congenial, smiling Jesus trotted out for religious holidays but otherwise rendered mute when it comes to matters of war, power and politics.

Yet for those who truly study the life and teachings of Jesus, the resounding theme is one of outright resistance to war, materialism and empire.

What a marked contrast to the advice being given to Americans by church leaders to “submit to your leaders and those in authority,” which in the American police state translates to complying, conforming, submitting, obeying orders, deferring to authority and generally doing whatever a government official tells you to do.

Telling Americans to blindly obey the government or put their faith in politics and vote for a political savior flies in the face of everything for which Jesus lived and died.

Will we follow the path of least resistance—turning a blind eye to the evils of our age and marching in lockstep with the police state—or will we be transformed nonconformists “dedicated to justice, peace, and brotherhood”?

As Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us in a powerful sermon delivered 70 years ago, “This command not to conform comes … [from] Jesus Christ, the world’s most dedicated nonconformist, whose ethical nonconformity still challenges the conscience of mankind.”

Ultimately, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is the contradiction that must be resolved if the radical Jesus—the one who stood up to the Roman Empire and was crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be—is to be an example for our modern age.