Aussie Housing Market Collapses: Building Approvals Crash 25%

Following September's 9.3% MoM plunge in Aussie home approvals, hopes were high that October would see a bounce (expectations were for a 2% gain) as central bankers jawboned confidence higher. However, it didn't… Building approvals collapsed 12.6% MoM and a shocking 24.9% year-over-year decline is equal to the worst drop since Lehman. Ironically, just this month Aussie Treasurer eased restrictions on foreign buyers (otherwise known as bag holders it would seem).

It's been weak year anyway but this is an utter disaster as the Aussie housing bubble finally pops… (on a non-seasonally-adjusted basis the year-over-year drop is 28% – the biggest since Nov 2008)

This is the lowest level of building approvals per capita in 2 years as it seems China's credit impulse has faded entirely.

The cracks have been showing with default rates on the rise (as AFR reports)

Mirvac said it experienced a rise in the default rate for the settlement of off-the-plan residential sales, above its historic average of 1 per cent.

On top of defaults, the Australian apartment markets – which boomed in the last four years – are facing other fresh risks…

On Friday, HSBC said an oversupply of apartments in Melbourne and Brisbane could send unit prices down by as much as 6 per cent in 2017.

 

The apartment building boom, an ongoing concern for the Reserve Bank of Australia, especially in inner city Melbourne is likely to "start showing through" in price drops of between 2 per cent and 6 per cent in that city next year, HSBC chief economist Paul Bloxham said in a note.

 

It's a similar story in Brisbane where apartment prices are forecast to fall by as much as 4 per cent.

 

"A national apartment building boom, which has been part of the rebalancing act, is likely to deliver some oversupply in the Melbourne and Brisbane apartment markets, which is expected to see apartment price falls in these markets," Mr Bloxham said.

"A modest shakeout in the inner-city apartment markets in Brisbane and Melbourne, as we are forecasting, is not expected to have a broad-based impact on the overall housing market or economy."

Which perhaps explains why Aussie Treasurer Scott Morrison said the government will make changes to the foreign investment framework to allow foreign buyers to buy an off-the-plan dwelling that another foreign buyer has failed to settle as a new dwelling.

The federal government has announced it will make it easier for foreigners to buy new apartments amid concerns of a looming glut that will drive down prices.

 

Previously, on-sale of a purchased off the plan apartment was regarded as a second hand sale, which is not open to foreign buyers. Foreign buyers can only buy new dwellings.

 

The move effectively opens up the pool of buyers who can soak a potential flood of apartments hitting the residential markets due to failed settlements.

Hoping for some of the capital taking flight from China to rush down, we are sure.

By way of reminder, here is David Llewellyn-Smith via Acting-Man.com, to explain why the Australian property bubble is on a scale like no other…

Yesterday Citi produced a new index which pinned the Australian property bubble at 16 year highs:

Bubble trouble. Whether we label them bubbles, the Australian economy has experienced a series of developments that potentially could have the economy lurching from boom to bust and back. In recent years these have included:

  •  the record run up in commodity prices and subsequent correction;
  •  the associated boom in mining investment and current reversal;
  •  record low bond yields;
  •  the boom in housing construction, specifically apartments, that was spurred by the low interest rates.

 

Housing indicators in the bubble meter are at record highs but interest rates remain at record lows. Typically monetary policy is well into tightening mode at this stage in the housing cycle. A destabilizing housing burst (both in activity and prices) is a clear risk, particularly the longer the upswing runs.

 

r3-1

Click to enlarge.

 

 

The size of the Australian property bubble is old news. It’s extreme in valuation terms:

dsfg

Click to enlarge.

 

zdfb

Click to enlarge.

 

Underpinned by world-beating household debt:

zseg

Click to enlarge.

 

And nose-bleed levels of foreign borrowing:

wry

Click to enlarge.

 

What is less well understood is how such a large and sustained bubble has distorted the Australian political economy.  The bubble has been running for twenty years (which some argue proves it is no such thing) and every time it has been threatened it was saved by luck or a bailout which sold off a little more of Australia’s liberal democracy.

In 2003, the bubble first threatened to burst as the Reserve Bank raised interest rates. But the bubble was rescued by the combined forces of demand side fiscal stimulus for first home buyers in the form of large cash grants, and the arrival the Chinese commodity boom that flooded the economy with people and income. The government of the day learned its lesson and economic reform has been dead ever since!

In 2008, the bubble was jeopardised again when the pipeline of offshore debt froze solid and major Australian banks were rendered insolvent given they could not roll over their enormous foreign debts. The government of the day rode to their rescue with guarantees to all offshore funding, directly bought mortgage backed securities (which it still holds), unleashed the largest proportional fiscal stimulus in the world, doubled the first home buyer grants, opened the spigots on foreign investor buying, and other measures. Almost all of it violated existing financial sector architecture and governance and virtually none of it has been wound back. No housing market in the world enjoyed such wholesale and limitless support.

In 2011, the bubble again faltered when the China commodity boom returned and raised interest rates. But, when threatened, the bubble was bailed out, this time by a central bank that desperately cut interest rates to all-time lows because it had over-estimated the durability of the commodities boom, and an influx of Chinese capital that was allowed to price-out local buyers with barely a word of protest from regulatory authorities.

While those three saves of the bubble have been widely admired as solid Keynesian policy-making, and have allowed Australia to claim a “miracle” economic expansion of 25 years, they have also transformed its economy and political economy.

The Australian economy is now structurally uncompetitive as capital inflows persistently keep its currency too high, usually chasing land prices that ensure input costs are amazingly inflated as well. Unsurprisingly, Australian manufacturing’s share of outlook has collapsed to 5.8% of GDP (even before the exit of car manufacturing scheduled for the next 12 months) half that of the supposedly “hollowed out” US and UK economies, and on a par with the financial haven of Luxembourg. Wider tradables sectors have been hit hard as well and Australian exports are now a lousy 20% of GDP despite the largest mining boom in history.

The other major economic casualty has been multi-factor productivity. It has been virtually zero for fifteen years as capital was consistently and massively mis-allocated into unproductive assets. To grow at all today, the nation now runs chronic twin deficits with the current account at -4% and Budget deficit of -3% of GDP.

But the damage is in some ways even worse in the political economy. How have Australian authorities responded to this growing crisis? By egging it on.

Not only are they running unsustainable deficits into looming sovereign downgrades, they have sustained historically very high rates of immigration to attempt to back-fill and support property prices. These levels have been so aggressive in the major eastern cities, which are now projecting a near doubling of their populations within 40 years (from four-plus to eight million), that elections are now routinely won and lost on issues of choked infrastructure, and a vehemently anti-immigration movement is afoot in the polity. Younger generations are also boiling over with anger at being locked out of housing markets. A full half of first home buyers rely upon parents for equity and their numbers have collapsed to just 12% of total sales.

Five prime ministers in six years have come and gone as standards of living fall in part owing to massive immigration inappropriate to economic circumstances and other property-friendly policy. The most recent national election boiled down to a virtual referendum on real estate taxation subsidies. The victor, the conservative Coalition party, betrayed every market principle its possesses by mounting an extreme fear campaign against the Labor party’s proposal to remove negative gearing. This tax policy allows more than one million Australians to engage in a negative carry into property in the hope of capital gains. In a nation of just 24 million, 1.3 million Australians lose an average of $9k per annum on this strategy thanks to the tax break.

The campaign against tax reform was led by former head of Goldman Sachs Australia, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is a large Australian property-holder, and Treasurer Scott Morrison, who is the former head of research at the Property Council of Australia, the nation’s leading realty lobby. Australia’s 225 politicians hold a combined property portfolio worth over $300m.

The property corruption has even undermined the nation’s strategic outlook. The large wave of Chinese immigrants and investors have been accompanied by a hard-edged soft power drive from Beijing that is sorely undermining Australia’s commitment to its traditional US alliance partner. Chinese bribery scandals have erupted in the parliament, usually from property-based sources, and have clearly perverted policy-making. So much so, that Australia’s defence and espionage agencies are in a rising panic that Australia is literally auctioning its strategic outlook to Chinese property speculators.

How could all of this happen without the media holding it to account? As the economy gets ever more reliant upon its great foreign-funded housing ponzi scheme, and the political economy wraps ever more tightly around it, Australian media has been engulfed as well. Aussie media is a duopoly divided between a conservative Murdoch press and liberal Fairfax press. But both are largely loss-making old media empires whose only major growth profit centres are the nation’s two largest real estate portals, realestate.com.au and Domain. Thus neither reports real estate with any objective other than the further inflation of prices. Indeed newspaper (print and online) operations are nothing more than loss-leaders for over-excited real estate eyeballs. In the event that the Australian bubble were to pop then Australians will certainly be the last to know and the propaganda is so thick that they may never find out until they actually try to sell!

Before the year 2000, the Australian economy was a vibrant mix of world-leading productivity growth, liberalised tradable sectors balanced between commodities, services and manufacturing, solid household wealth, a reasonable external position, a clean public balance sheet and reliable institutions.

Today, it is a wildly imbalanced propertocracy with enormous offshore debts, a polity soaked by a Goebbels-like property propaganda machine, and a government run by realty carpet-baggers willing to sell their children to Chinese communists so long long as they pick up a three bedroom apartment along with little Johnny.

In a world replete with bubbles, rarely has one been quite so complete!

via http://ift.tt/2gE9S2P Tyler Durden

Trump, Romney Spotted Having Dinner Inside Trump Hotel Amid Cabinet Speculation

With Donald Trump set to make his official announcement of Steven Mnuchin’s appointment to the Treasury Secretary post tomorrow at 6:30am, in the process placing yet another former Goldman banker in one of the most important US government positions, a move which has already led to accusations of selling out by members of his core support base, is Trump preparing to serve up another major cabinet surprise?

As was reported earlier by ABC, Donald Trump and Mitt Romney would be having dinner this evening amid ongoing “cabinet speculation” that Romney is one of the leading contenders for the Secretary of State position.

While we don’t know what the two have said to each other, and it is still unknown if Trump has or will offer Romney – a person many define as the embodiment of the “swamp” – the top US diplomat position, we do know where the two met – the Jean George restaurant located at the Trump International Hotel & Tower New York next to both CNN and Central Park – and we also have an almost intimate dinner-side coverage of how the dinner between the two, who were joined by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, progressed courtesy of the omnipresent Twitter.

via http://ift.tt/2gE3Lvn Tyler Durden

A Narrative For Every Season: Stocks, Before And After Trump

Submitted by Michael Lebowitz via 720Global.com,

"All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" – Voltaire (Candide/The Optimist)

Consider the media headlines and stories published before and after the presidential election.

Before the election:

  • “The conventional wisdom is that, right off the bat, the stock market would fall precipitous-ly. Simon Johnson, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, posited that Mr. Trump’s presidency would “likely cause the stock market to crash and plunge the world into recession.” He predicted that Mr. Trump’s “anti-trade policies would cause a sharp slowdown, much like the British are experiencing” after their vote to exit the European Union.” – The New York Times – “What Happens to the Markets if Donald Trump Wins?” by Andrew Ross Sorkin
  • “The stock market doesn’t like the idea of a Trump Presidency”- PBS Newshour
  • Economists: A Trump win would tank the market” – Politico
  • “Stock Markets will freak out if Trump wins, but you probably shouldn’t”- Boston Globe

After:

  • Wall Street welcomes Trump with a bang” –CNN Money
  • Stock Market Slingshots Higher After Trump Victory Sparked Overnight Plunge” Forbes
  • Dow Surges to Fresh All-Time High on Trump-Fueled Momentum” –Fox Business

Following Donald Trump’s surprise victory and the violent market reactions, many investors are left scratching their heads. As shown above, the consensus narrative warned that a Trump victory would spell doom for the markets. Days later, the narrative flipped and Trump’s economic policies, all of which were known prior to the election, are deemed beneficial for share prices.

In this article we evaluate the narratives we see day-to-day and how they not only tell a story, true or false, but provide comfort and, importantly, a sense of control. We then explore the current mar-ket narrative calling Trump’s victory bullish for share prices. We hope to provide cognizance of the influence of narratives and to offer a basis to help investors judge whether the markets’ reaction is justified.

The Narrative

nar·ra·tive
?ner?div/

A spoken or written account of connected events; a story.

A narrative is a story or a line of reasoning that helps explain an event. Sometimes a narrative is factual, sometimes it is fabricated and quite often it lies somewhere in between. A great example can be found when your favorite newspaper proclaims that the market was up or down yesterday due to a specific event or piece of data. Trying to encapsulate the hundreds of millions of investment decisions into one story line is not only ridiculous, but grossly misleading. Human nature demands narratives, as they give us a sense of control and the comfort of understanding, valid or not, why something has occurred.

Global warming provides a good example of a popular narrative. The narrative states that humans are the overwhelming cause for the increase in global temperatures and the problems it causes. There is no doubt human actions have a big impact on the earth’s climate, but there are millions of other varia-bles, many of which are not understood at all. By assigning blame on humans, rightly or wrongly, we are provided a sense of control over the problem. Humans find it comforting to believe that if we caused the problem then we can certainly control the problem and possibly even reverse it.

Over the last few years, investors have relied heavily on narratives to help justify extended valuations. A great example is the “bad news is good news” mantra. The stock market has seen more than its fair share of days when weak economic data was the impetus to buy stocks. This storyline causes investors to ignore the fact that weaker economic growth leads to weaker earnings and inevitably declining pric-es. Instead, investors have taken comfort in a belief that the Federal Reserve will counteract weak eco-nomic data with monetary stimulus and thus influence prices higher regardless of economic fundamen-tals. The narrative provides investors comfort and rationalization at a time when valuations are ex-treme and economic growth is stagnating. The harm of this narrative, and any narrative for that matter, occurs if it is proven wrong.

Panic Narrative

The market volatility on the presidential election night was stunning. Prior to the election, many con-cerned investors had shorted equities, hedged positions and/or moved to greater cash positions. As a Trump victory looked more and more viable, the markets plunged and at first proved the concerned investors correct. Early Wednesday morning, however, the markets reversed sharply. At that point, it is likely that a perfect technical storm formed.

With S&P 500 equity futures limit down 5%, computer algorithms, trained to “buy the dip” were staring at a dip of monstrous proportions. The exchange limits that halted trading provided a floor to the mar-ket downfall. Once the downside was capped some investors began covering shorts and even outright buying. The market started rising and likely triggered signals for the algorithms to buy. Keep in mind, the blueprint for this reaction was recently affirmed by the BREXIT vote.

The race was on. Not only were the computers buying, but investors, well trained to buy the dip, jumped in as well. Adding fuel to the fire were those investors that were short the market or hedged as a defense against the low probability of a Trump victory. By 9:30 am, the S&P 500 was down 8 points, having gained 92 points from the nights lows. It closed the day up 24 points and the week 76 points or 3.6% higher. Shortly after the media declared Trump victorious in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a panic-born narrative was created.

The new narrative goes as follows: Donald Trump will cut taxes, increase infrastructure spending, re-duce regulation, allow for the repatriation of foreign profits, and be a proponent of a host of other business friendly ideas. All of these proposals were public weeks before the election, when the market discounted equity prices on concerns that Trump could win and such policies would be enacted.

Out of desperation for answers, this new business friendly narrative was born. Investors, desperately seeking an explanation for the sharp rally, were placated. While such proposed actions taken at face value may benefit stock prices, it is incumbent upon investors to understand the efficacy and ramifica-tions of the proposals as well as the political and economic environment.

Trump’s Plan

Donald Trump does not have a magic wand that allows him to instantly enact his wishes. Consider the following:

  • Legislative– Trump must deal with Democrats in Congress that abhor the thought of him as Presi-dent. There are quite a few Republicans who harbor similar views.
  • Tax cuts– While positive for the economy, will they result in more productive investments? If not, they do little more than provide a short-term economic spark and increase the budget deficit and already gargantuan national debt.
  • Infrastructure spending– Infrastructure projects can be productive, like the Hoover Dam, or unpro-ductive like a bridge to nowhere. Unproductive projects, as is fairly typical, provide little more than a temporary burst of growth and higher debt levels. Many economists believe the fiscal multiplier to be negative. In other words, the amount spent on fiscal projects actually reduces economic growth. Typically, we fail to consider the money that could have been invested in more productive growth that instead is used to fund unproductive projects. Expenditures on new infrastructure are very different from revitalization projects on existing structures, akin to remodeling a home.
  • Interest rates– If Trump is successful in generating economic growth and inflation, interest rates will rise. The government, corporations and individuals of this country are already burdened with a heavy debt load in large part masked by historically low interest rates.
  • Dollar– The U.S. Dollar may continue to appreciate versus the respective currencies of many of our trade partners as growth and higher interest rates are factored into currency prices. If this occurs, U.S. exports and corporate earnings will be pressured. Additionally, a stronger U.S. Dollar creates, deflationary pressures and destabilizes countries heavily reliant on dollar funding, such as China and other emerging market economies. These countries are a very big part of the U.S. economic supply chain.
  • Trade deals– Renegotiating trade deals may be beneficial in the long run, but in the short term such actions can produce hostility from other nations and may result in a reduction in global trade.

Our point is not to say Trump’s proposals will or will not work. Without more details, which will emerge over the next few years, we are only able to speculate on their effectiveness. We summarized a few of Trump’s proposals above to help you better understand that there are many factors to consider before bluntly claiming them positive as the market has done.

Many investors are suddenly comparing Trump’s economic policy proposals to those of Ronald Reagan. For those that deem that bullish, we remind you that the economic environment and potential growth of 1982 was vastly different than it is today. Consider the following table:


 

Summary

As investors, we must understand the popular narrative and respect it as it is a formidable short- term force driving the market. That said, we also must understand whether there is logic and truth behind the narrative. In the late 1990’s, investors bought into the new economy narrative. By 2002, the mar-ket reminded them that the narrative was borne of greed not reality. Similarly, in the early to mid-2000’s real estate investors were lead to believe that real-estate prices never decline.

The bottom line is that one should respect the narrative and its ability to propel the market higher. However, think for yourself and truly understand the pros and cons of Trumps proposals as well as the daunting odds of enacting them. Your investing success is dependent on determining whether the nar-rative is the truth or simply a rationalization to provide comfort and control when desperately needed.

via http://ift.tt/2gH3sgR Tyler Durden

Wayback Machine Announces Move To Canada Out Of Fear Of Trump Censorship

Before November 8th a whole host of celebrities vowed to leave the United States if Trump won the presidency (see “These Are The Celebrities Who Vowed To Leave America If Trump Wins“).  As far as we know, George Lopez is the only one to subsequently confirm that he will actually be leaving the country despite numerous offers of free private planes and chefs to Lena Dunham to follow through on her pledge…unfortunately she still hasn’t taken the bait.

That said, it looks as though Trump’s victory has claimed one other defector: The Wayback Machine.  The webpage archiving site has announced that after waking up on November 9th “to a new administration promising radical change” they have decided to move their operations to Canada.

So this year, we have set a new goal: to create a copy of Internet Archive’s digital collections in another country. We are building the Internet Archive of Canada because, to quote our friends at LOCKSS, “lots of copies keep stuff safe.” This project will cost millions. So this is the one time of the year I will ask you: please make a tax-deductible donation to help make sure the Internet Archive lasts forever.

 

On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change. It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change.

 

For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions.

 

It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase.

Wayback

 

Of course, the announcement also came with a plea for donations:

You may not know this, but your support for the Internet Archive makes more than 3 million e-books available for free to millions of Open Library patrons around the world.

 

Your support has fueled the work of journalists who used our Political TV Ad Archive in their fact-checking of candidates’ claims.

 

It keeps the Wayback Machine going, saving 300 million Web pages each week, so no one will ever be able to change the past just because there is no digital record of it. The Web needs a memory, the ability to look back.

 

If you find our work has been useful to you, please take a minute to donate whatever you can afford today. Help ensure the Internet Archive lasts forever.  I promise you—It will be money well spent.

But don’t worry, we’re sure this isn’t just another Jill Steinesque fundraising scam to take advantage of disaffected Hillary supporters who will give money to almost anyone who opposes Trump….so go ahead and donate away young snowflakes.

via http://ift.tt/2gTvWae Tyler Durden

The End Of Empires: Rome Vs. America

Submitted by 'Jeremiah Johnson' (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne)), via SHTFPlan.com,

The year was 451, and the battle of Chalons (also known as Catalaunian Fields and Campus Martius) was fought between a coalition of Roman legionnaires, Germanic Visigoths, and Gauls against the Huns.  Flavius Aetius was the Roman commanding general, and he led his forces to defeat Attila, king of the Huns and commander of the Hun armies.  The loss caused Attila to withdraw and skirmish into Italy, but again (this time through diplomacy and concessions) he withdrew in 452, returning into what is now modern Hungary.  Attila died in 453, and the Hun menace to Europe had ended.

Aetius had been the declining (and fragmented) Western Roman Empire’s best chance to restructure itself.  He had fought in Gaul and throughout Italy and Europe for decades, sometimes even with support from the Huns before Attila began his quest for empire.  A master strategist, tactician, diplomat, and warrior, he effectively stemmed the collapse of the Western Roman Empire for another 25 years.  In all probability, he may have been able to turn things around for a longer period of time.

This was not to be, as he was assassinated by none other than the Emperor Valentinian III and his henchman Heraclius on 22 September 454.

The emperor killed the very man who had protected and assured his throne, and worse: now there was no true strategist to take the reins of military command.  The last great Roman general was no more, and the Western Roman Empire continued to decline and fragment.  Odoacer, a half-Hunnish barbarian general rallied forces to mutiny against their (and his) previous commander, Orestes, the Roman Senior military general, in the Battle of Pavia on August 23, 476.  Orestes was captured and killed.  Less than two weeks later, on or about September 4, 476, Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor and the son of Orestes was deposed by Odoacer.

Less than 25 years after the battle of Chalons had given it a fighting chance, the Western Roman Empire was no more.

The city of Rome had formerly been sacked by the Visigoths in 410 after they had originally arrived outside of the gates in the year 408 and roamed the surrounding countryside.  Although the city had been taken, it had not been burnt to the ground, with the Senate being the only edifice of note that had been razed.  This was because the Visigoths were Christians and held reverence for the churches and the city’s predominance as the center of the Christian church.  The legions had already been withdrawn from Brittania (Britain) and interaction and mutual commerce there had ceased by the year 410.

The period that Aetius drew the Western Roman Empire from the brink of collapse occurred during the years of 424 – 450, when for the first two decades he battled the Gallic and Germanic tribes throughout all of Europe in various calculated, surgical campaigns.  The culmination of his efforts came at Catalaunian Fields in 451, but most historians agree that although a decisive battle and turning point, Aetius’ main work had been accomplished in the two decades prior to it.

And here we are, as history repeats itself, in the last days of the American Empire.  Now ready to assume the Purple and ascend to the seat of power, Donald Trump is going to command and lead (we hope).  The campaigns for the midterm elections will begin in November of 2017, therefore Trump has less than one year to begin to reverse the devastation wrought by two consecutive Obama terms that have, in eight years, placed the country on its deathbed and measured it for burial.

In a four-year term of office, Donald Trump has to do the job that Aetius did for Rome in two decades, with the last year of that term being wasted on the primary focus of his reelection.  What is the difference between Rome and America?  A vast geographical area, influxes of alien migrants, an economy that is faltering, a military less than at its best, immorality, vice, and corruption at every turn, societal degradation and a welfare state, and foreign nations ready to pounce characterize both empires.

Because in order to restore the United States, there is one thing Trump will have to do that Aetius could not do for Rome: change the mindset of society and propel the people into a consciousness of individual control…over themselves…and the reversal of the moral and community decline of their own accord.  What do the odds makers in Vegas place on this being able to be accomplished, your guess is as good as mine.  I’m betting against, because as long as money and power back the throne, the throne can never be fully effective.  As long as the populace can be bought off with their own money and welfare exists, the public will stagnate and never reach their full potential to rejuvenate the failing society.

To bet “for” such a restoration is to bet against human nature, the very thing that can prevent it.  Will we go the way of Rome?  We already have, in most regards.

The spectacles of the Flavian Amphitheater (the Coliseum) and the Circus Maximus have been supplanted with the reality TV shows and Monday Night Football.  The populace is just as stultified and easily distracted now as it was then, with everyone looking out for their own interests instead of the nation’s.  When the population degrades morally, socially, and intellectually, then any nation truly dies and fades away, sometimes long before the actual date of collapse.  The cycle continues, and America is not immune from it.  Rome had its twilight period and staved off the fall for 25 years; America is in its twilight period now.

via http://ift.tt/2fOKoyq Tyler Durden

The End Of Empires: Rome Vs. America

Submitted by 'Jeremiah Johnson' (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne)), via SHTFPlan.com,

The year was 451, and the battle of Chalons (also known as Catalaunian Fields and Campus Martius) was fought between a coalition of Roman legionnaires, Germanic Visigoths, and Gauls against the Huns.  Flavius Aetius was the Roman commanding general, and he led his forces to defeat Attila, king of the Huns and commander of the Hun armies.  The loss caused Attila to withdraw and skirmish into Italy, but again (this time through diplomacy and concessions) he withdrew in 452, returning into what is now modern Hungary.  Attila died in 453, and the Hun menace to Europe had ended.

Aetius had been the declining (and fragmented) Western Roman Empire’s best chance to restructure itself.  He had fought in Gaul and throughout Italy and Europe for decades, sometimes even with support from the Huns before Attila began his quest for empire.  A master strategist, tactician, diplomat, and warrior, he effectively stemmed the collapse of the Western Roman Empire for another 25 years.  In all probability, he may have been able to turn things around for a longer period of time.

This was not to be, as he was assassinated by none other than the Emperor Valentinian III and his henchman Heraclius on 22 September 454.

The emperor killed the very man who had protected and assured his throne, and worse: now there was no true strategist to take the reins of military command.  The last great Roman general was no more, and the Western Roman Empire continued to decline and fragment.  Odoacer, a half-Hunnish barbarian general rallied forces to mutiny against their (and his) previous commander, Orestes, the Roman Senior military general, in the Battle of Pavia on August 23, 476.  Orestes was captured and killed.  Less than two weeks later, on or about September 4, 476, Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor and the son of Orestes was deposed by Odoacer.

Less than 25 years after the battle of Chalons had given it a fighting chance, the Western Roman Empire was no more.

The city of Rome had formerly been sacked by the Visigoths in 410 after they had originally arrived outside of the gates in the year 408 and roamed the surrounding countryside.  Although the city had been taken, it had not been burnt to the ground, with the Senate being the only edifice of note that had been razed.  This was because the Visigoths were Christians and held reverence for the churches and the city’s predominance as the center of the Christian church.  The legions had already been withdrawn from Brittania (Britain) and interaction and mutual commerce there had ceased by the year 410.

The period that Aetius drew the Western Roman Empire from the brink of collapse occurred during the years of 424 – 450, when for the first two decades he battled the Gallic and Germanic tribes throughout all of Europe in various calculated, surgical campaigns.  The culmination of his efforts came at Catalaunian Fields in 451, but most historians agree that although a decisive battle and turning point, Aetius’ main work had been accomplished in the two decades prior to it.

And here we are, as history repeats itself, in the last days of the American Empire.  Now ready to assume the Purple and ascend to the seat of power, Donald Trump is going to command and lead (we hope).  The campaigns for the midterm elections will begin in November of 2017, therefore Trump has less than one year to begin to reverse the devastation wrought by two consecutive Obama terms that have, in eight years, placed the country on its deathbed and measured it for burial.

In a four-year term of office, Donald Trump has to do the job that Aetius did for Rome in two decades, with the last year of that term being wasted on the primary focus of his reelection.  What is the difference between Rome and America?  A vast geographical area, influxes of alien migrants, an economy that is faltering, a military less than at its best, immorality, vice, and corruption at every turn, societal degradation and a welfare state, and foreign nations ready to pounce characterize both empires.

Because in order to restore the United States, there is one thing Trump will have to do that Aetius could not do for Rome: change the mindset of society and propel the people into a consciousness of individual control…over themselves…and the reversal of the moral and community decline of their own accord.  What do the odds makers in Vegas place on this being able to be accomplished, your guess is as good as mine.  I’m betting against, because as long as money and power back the throne, the throne can never be fully effective.  As long as the populace can be bought off with their own money and welfare exists, the public will stagnate and never reach their full potential to rejuvenate the failing society.

To bet “for” such a restoration is to bet against human nature, the very thing that can prevent it.  Will we go the way of Rome?  We already have, in most regards.

The spectacles of the Flavian Amphitheater (the Coliseum) and the Circus Maximus have been supplanted with the reality TV shows and Monday Night Football.  The populace is just as stultified and easily distracted now as it was then, with everyone looking out for their own interests instead of the nation’s.  When the population degrades morally, socially, and intellectually, then any nation truly dies and fades away, sometimes long before the actual date of collapse.  The cycle continues, and America is not immune from it.  Rome had its twilight period and staved off the fall for 25 years; America is in its twilight period now.

via http://ift.tt/2fOKoyq Tyler Durden

China To Launch “Social Credit System” To Monitor Everything From Jaywalking To Internet Shopping Activity

In the United States “big data” is a major trend that has been adopted by almost every major retailer in an effort to figure out the precise best way to convince American’s to buy more stuff they don’t need.  In China, “big data” is all about population control.

As noted by the Wall Street Journal, various cities throughout China are currently piloting a “social-credit system” that will assign a “personal citizen score” to every single person based on behavior such as spending habits, turnstile violations and filial piety, which can blacklist citizens from loans, jobs, air travel. 

Hangzhou’s local government is piloting a “social credit” system the Communist Party has said it wants to roll out nationwide by 2020, a digital reboot of the methods of social control the regime uses to avert threats to its legitimacy.

 

More than three dozen local governments across China are beginning to compile digital records of social and financial behavior to rate creditworthiness. A person can incur black marks for infractions such as fare cheating, jaywalking and violating family-planning rules. The effort echoes the dang’an, a system of dossiers the Communist party keeps on urban workers’ behavior.

 

In time, Beijing expects to draw on bigger, combined data pools, including a person’s internet activity, according to interviews with some architects of the system and a review of government documents. Algorithms would use a range of data to calculate a citizen’s rating, which would then be used to determine all manner of activities, such as who gets loans, or faster treatment at government offices or access to luxury hotels.

Input data for the social credit system would come from a variety of government sources but would also incorporate social behavior based on things like volunteer activities, academic records, social media usage and online shopping trends.

For initial social-credit efforts, local officials are relying on information collected by government departments, such as court records and loan and tax data. More-extensive logging of everyday habits, such as social-media use and online shopping, lies with China’s internet companies, including e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.

 

A credit-scoring service by Alibaba affiliate Ant Financial Services—one of eight companies approved to pilot commercial experiments with social-credit scoring—assigns ratings based on information such as when customers shop online, what they buy and what phone they use. If users opt in, the score can also consider education levels and legal records. Perks in the past for getting high marks have included express security screening at the Beijing airport, part of an Ant agreement with the airport.

 

“Especially for young people, your online behavior goes towards building up your online credit profile,” said Joe Tsai, Alibaba’s executive vice chairman, “and we want people to be aware of that so they know to behave themselves better.”

China Watching

 

Of course, if it wasn’t clear, the objective of the “social credit system”, at least according to slogans printed in planning docs is to ““allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”  Seems fairly reasonable…though we suspect there may be some issues surrounding who defines “discredited”…but we’re sure it will be fine.

The endeavor reinforces President Xi Jinping’s campaign to tighten his grip on the country and dictate morality at a time of economic uncertainty that threatens to undermine the party. Mr. Xi in October called for innovation in “social governance” that would “heighten the capacity to forecast and prevent all manner of risks.”

 

The national social-credit system’s aim, according to a slogan repeated in planning documents, is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

 

Zan Aizong, a Hangzhou human-rights activist, sees the system, once it’s fully operational, as an Orwellian exercise to keep closer tabs on a populace already lacking basic liberties such as freedom of speech. “Tracking everyone that way,” Mr. Zan said, “it’s just like ‘1984.’ ”

Luckily, a “blacklisting system” has already been created that can seamlessly be tied right into the social credit system.  The system is designed to automatically provide “green lanes” for faster access to government services for “well-behaved” citizens while levying travel bans and other punishments on those who get out of line. 

China’s judiciary has already created a blacklisting system that would tie into the national social-credit operation. Zhuang Daohe, a Hangzhou legal scholar, cites the example of a client, part-owner of a travel company, who now can’t buy tickets for planes or high-speed trains because a Hangzhou court put him on a blacklist after he lost a dispute with a landlord.

 

“This has had a huge impact on the business,” said the client’s wife. “He can’t travel with clients anymore.” Added Mr. Zhuang: “What happens when it punishes the wrong person?”

 

Blacklists will expose offenders and restrict them from certain activities, while well-behaved citizens will earn access to “green lanes” that provide faster government services, the blueprint said. Citizens in jobs deemed sensitive—lawyers, accountants, teachers, journalists—will be subject to enhanced scrutiny, it said.

Penalties for low scorers will include higher barriers to obtaining loans and bans on indulgences such as luxury hotels, according to state-media reports.

But we’re thankful to be living right here in the U.S. where those with dissenting opinions are simply labelled as “useful idiots of Putin” and subjected to an all-out smear campaign by a corrupt mainstream media.

via http://ift.tt/2gE0e02 Tyler Durden

How Google Tried To Tip The Scales For Clinton

Submitted by Giuseppe Macri via InsideSources.com,

The Obama administration’s revolving door with Google has been anything but subtle over the last eight years, and a new report from a government watchdog out this week shows the Silicon Valley giant hoped to extend that relationship to what many expected would be a Hillary Clinton presidency.

According to Campaign for Accountability, a non-profit government watchdog, that door was already growing in scope while Clinton headed the State Department under Obama. At least 57 people shared affiliations with Clinton and Google or related entities at the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and her presidential campaign.

Those include Clinton campaign Chief Technology Officer Stephanie Hannon, Chief Product Officer Osi Imeokparia, Deputy CTO Derek Parham and Director of Digital Advertising Jason Rosenbaum, all of whom hailed from Google before joining the campaign.

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet (the redubbed parent company of Google) who developed custom election monitoring software for the 2012 Obama campaign helped Clinton in a similar fashion. Schmidt funded Civis Analytics and The Groundwork, two data analytics and poll tracking firms that worked on her campaign.

Clinton and her super PAC Priorities USA spent almost $1.5 million on services from those companies.

“Had she won the election, Clinton would have been significantly indebted to Google and Schmidt, whom she has referred to as her ‘longtime friend,'” the report reads. “For comparison, Schmidt’s future team at Civis Analytics was credited with helping produce his five million vote margin of victory during Obama’s 2012 election, and Schmidt subsequently enjoyed extensive access at the Obama White House.”

Personal emails hacked from campaign manager John Podesta show Schmidt personally met with Podesta and Clinton State Department aide Cheryl Mills in 2014, before the campaign was officially announced, and three months later Groundwork set up shop near Clinton headquarters in New York.

“[H]e’s ready to fund, advise, recruit talent, etc,” Podesta wrote after meeting with Schmidt in Washington, D.C. in 2014. Schmidt would continue to meet consistently with Clinton advisers to advise its voter targeting effort and data management.

“Clearly wants to be head outside advisor,” Podesta added before suggesting a meeting between Schmidt and Clinton campaign strategist Robby Mook.

As with most of the tech industry, Google donated heavily to Clinton over Trump, but Google notably became Clinton’s largest corporate contributor, according to the report, with at least six high-ranking executives and other employees contributing more than $1.3 million to her campaign coffers. The next highest corporate contributor was Microsoft with over $700,000 and Apple, which had its own close relationship with Clinton advisers per more Podesta emails, putting up more than $500,000, according to OpenSecrets.org.

“Had Clinton won the election, Google would have been able to capitalize on a close working relationship stretching back to her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State,” report authors wrote. “State Department officials traveled to Silicon Valley for meetings at Google’s headquarters attended by Schmidt, where they brainstormed how new technologies could be used to address diplomatic, development, and security concerns.”

Those efforts include the former secretary of state’s Internet Freedom agenda announced amid Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East in 2010. Clinton advocated international open internet norms and encouraged the adoption of technologies like encryption and social media to protect privacy and advocate for change in repressed regimes like Egypt and Syria.

The door between the two has spun in both directions since Clinton’s tenure heading the State Department, where at least 19 officials have joined Google in recent years including Jared Cohen, a member of Clinton’s policy planning staff. Cohen and Schmidt built their own “foreign policy think-tank,” later dubbed Jigsaw, “that has carried out a wide range of missions, some in coordination with the State Department.” Cohen himself traveled to areas of conflict while working for Google “raising suspicions that he was acting as an unofficial backchannel for the State Department.”

“Had Clinton won the election, Google would have benefitted in current and new ventures from its extensive ties to her presidential campaign, her foundation, and the Clinton State Department,” the report reads. “Several of those ventures rely on government funding or would be subject to regulatory scrutiny.”

Clinton appointees at the Federal Communications Commission (charged with defending net neutrality and currently weighing rules that would let Google enter the set-top box market), at the Federal Trade Commission (looking at rules for internet of things devices, artificial intelligence and where the company has run into data privacy and anti-trust issues), and at the Department of Transportation (where standards will be set for the company’s self-driving cars), would all have likely benefitted Alphabet’s various business ventures.

“Beyond leaving its mark with Hillary Clinton, Google has proved highly adept during the past eight years at securing favorable decisions from federal agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,” Campaign for Accountability said.

Though Alphabet bet heavily on Clinton, as did most in the valley, the incoming Trump administration is showing early signs the search giant may not be shut out in the cold. The Trump transition team has welcomed some Google allies to advise its efforts.

“Having failed to back the winning presidential candidate,” Campaign for Accountability explains, “Google is now seeking to soften its opposition to Trump. Schmidt congratulated Trump following his win, calling it an ‘amazing story.’ He also praised Trump-backer Peter Thiel, calling himself a fan of the Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur.”

via http://ift.tt/2fAubyF Tyler Durden

Trump, Carrier Agree On Deal To Save 1000 Jobs At Indiana Plant

Nine months ago the video of a plant-full of American workers getting the news that they were 'fired' due to Carrier International moving its air-conditioning plant from Indiana to Mexico went viral and became a meme for Trump's "America First" plans. Today, according to CNBC's David Faber, the Trump administration and United Technologies have reached an agreement on keeping close to 1,000 factory jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana.

As a reminder, this is what happened in February when United Technologies decided to reinforce both of these trends all at once, when the company announced it would be eliminating 1,400 jobs at a Carrier plant in Indianapolis in favor of hiring some new "foreign-born" employees – only these "foreign-born" workers will be hired in Mexico.

"Two Indiana plants that make products for the heating, ventilating and air conditioning industry are shifting their manufacturing operations to Mexico, which will cost about 2,100 workers their jobs," The Indianapolis Star reports.

 

"Carrier is shuttering its manufacturing facility on Indianapolis' west side, eliminating about 1,400 jobs during the next three years [and] United Technologies Electronic Controls said that it will move its Huntington manufacturing operations to a new plant in Mexico, costing the northeastern Indiana city 700 jobs by 2018."

Watch below as 1,000 soon-to-be Donald Trump voters react to the announcement:

And now, as CNBC's David Faber reports…

More from the NYT:

On Thursday, Mr. Trump and Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor and the vice-president elect, plan to appear at Carrier’s Indianapolis plant to announce they’ve struck a deal with the company to keep a majority of the jobs in the state, according to officials with the transition team as well as Carrier.

 

Mr. Trump will be hard-pressed to alter the economic forces that have hammered the Rust Belt for decades, but forcing Carrier and its parent company, United Technologies, to reverse course is a powerful tactical strike that will rally his base even before he takes office.

 

In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be friendlier to business by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate tax code. In addition, Mr. Trump is expected to tone down his rhetoric threatening 35 percent tariffs on companies like Carrier that shift production south of the border.

We expect more details of the deal tomorrow but as The NY Times reports, roughly 10 percent of United Technologies’ $56 billion in revenues comes from the federal government, with the Pentagon its single largest customer. Its Pratt & Whitney division, for example, supplies the engines for the Air Force’s most advanced fighters and host of other planes. So perhaps some quid pro quo.

On the heels of the reported 'deal' with Ford, it seem president-elect Trump is starting to make good on some promises (but we can't help but wonder why President Obama did not do these things?)

via http://ift.tt/2gGOLdI Tyler Durden

$495K To Study Medieval Smells – Senator Releases 100 Examples Of Extreme Government Waste

A junior republican U.S. Senator from the state of Oklahoma, James Lankford, has released a publication detailing 100 examples of government waste entitled “Federal Fumbles – 100 Ways the Government Dropped the Ball.”  The publication is filled with truly infuriating examples of government waste that are sure to get your blood boiling. 

Here are a couple of our favorites:

Government Waste

 

And, to answer your question, yes we are well aware that nearly three-quarters of the federal budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense and that cutting out these small programs will have a negligible impact on the overall deficit.  That said, we hardly find that a compelling reason to waste $400k on a research paper “arguing that glaciers are best studied using feminist theories.”

Federal Budget


The full report can be viewed here:


via http://ift.tt/2gTqvrT Tyler Durden