India's love affair with gold is well-understood in Asia but completely misunderstood in the West — a phenomenon we have always found fascinating — but recently, as Grant Williams exclaims, it has become abundantly clear that this disconnect is widening almost daily as the Western fixation with 'The Gold Price' and the Eastern obsession with 'The Price of Gold' take ever more divergent paths…

After the recent frenzied activity at the Reserve Bank of India (which, if it had taken place in the USA, would absolutely have been labeled "The War on Gold" by CNN) as they tried every means possible to stop Indian citizens from buying gold (something I documented in "Never The Twain", TTMYGH August 27 2013), I set about thinking why it is that attitudes in the opposing hemispheres are so different regarding the yellow metal.

As I ruminated, a good friend of mine, who has forgotten more about gold than most will ever know, pointed me towards the Hindu Business Line; and there I stumbled upon a couple of pieces by S. Gurumurthy which, rather conveniently, do a lot of the heavy lifting for me.

In the first piece, entitled "Gold: Villain or Saviour?", S. tackles the stark disparity between economists' views of the "barbaric [sic] relic" and the views of the ordinary Indian citizen. And he does so beautifully:

(Hindu Business Line): Modern economists and the Indian people seem to operate on two different paradigms with regard to gold. In the modern West, gold is more a state asset than a private possession. Gold constitutes just three per cent of family wealth there, but a third in India. Western states, socialist or capitalist, expropriated all private gold during the last century. Even the liberal US outlawed private gold in 1936 and built official gold reserves of over 20,000 tonnes by 1950.

 

Modern economics views gold as an uneconomic, wasteful, private investment. But traditionally, in India, gold has been the preferred asset of the rural masses who hold 70 per cent of the nation's stocks. Indian gold habits clearly mock at modern economic theories.

So far, so good. Now at this point S. begins laying down a few facts and figures, and as he does so, the clouds surrounding the question of how important gold is to the average Indian quickly start to evaporate:

Market Oracle, a UK-based market analysis and forecasting online publication, captures the relation between India and gold thus: Indians own 20,000 tonnes of gold worth $1 trillion — almost half of India's GDP. For Indians, gold is not just money or asset; it ensures the financial security and stability of families. It has religious overtones. More than a commodity or money, it is integral to the warp and weft of family life. Investments in gold and jewelry are indistinguishable. Jewelry is the working capital of families; families collateralize it for commercial borrowing.

 

Some 13 per cent of Indian families, more from rural areas, borrow against gold as collateral; while rural India borrows from the unorganized financial sector, urbanites access bank loans.

 

The authors of Market Oracle seem to understand India's family-gold nexus better than Indian policymakers. Yet, despite such a paradigmatic difference, economic laws on gold based on the Western experience are continuously being tried out in India. Result: the establishment hates what the people love.

Do Indian policy makers not understand "India's family-gold nexus"? Of COURSE they do — but gold is the only refuge from inflation for the Indian population; something that just isn't acceptable to "The Establishment", because India's national debt has been run up by politicians amidst a corrupt and totally inefficient bureaucracy, whilst Indian citizens have patiently and painstakingly accumulated real wealth a gram at a time over many centuries. They are not about to give that up.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) set up a working group to investigate what every one of its members already knew instinctively (yet more taxpayer money being put to good use), and the conclusion they reached after a year's expensive extensive study was this:

(Reserve Bank of India): Demand for gold appears to be autonomous and a function of several influences and factors in India and may not be strictly amenable to policy changes. Supply of gold, through organised channels can be constricted, but buyers may take recourse to unauthorised channels to buy gold. The share of banks in importing gold has already been on decline over the years. Since it is difficult to vary the demand for gold the policy focus will have to be directed to (i) design and offer gold investors, alternative instruments that may fetch positive returns with a flexibility of liquidity; and (ii) increased unlocking of the hidden value locked in idle gold stocks through increased monetisation of gold. In this context encouraging gold jewellery loans from Banks and NBFCs, ensuring customer protection of borrowers and changes in the practices of NBFCs is desirable.

Brilliant! Welcome back, Captain Obvious!

Seriously, though, this is perhaps the most ludicrous government-funded study since US$3 million was spent on helping the National Science Foundation study shrimp running on a treadmill (no, really).

…

Westerners aren't used to the kind of inflation levels, government confiscation, and currency volatility so common in places like India; and so the need to own gold as protection isn't fully appreciated in the West.

Westerners pay lip service to gold's being "an inflation hedge" or "a currency" or "a safe asset", but these terms are used in an extremely abstract way by the vast majority of the investing public, who see gold as mostly just another trading vehicle. Yes, there are Western investors who have a deeper understanding of the reasons for owning physical gold, but they are a tiny minority.

In short, Asians like their gold to be heavy, shiny, and made of … well, gold.

This massive disparity in appetite for "placeholder gold" is just one side of the coin, however; and India is just one of the Eastern countries that has been soaking up copious amounts of physical gold in recent months.

…

That is a twelve-fold increase in bullion traffic between the primary vault in London and the major refineries in Switzerland.

Extraordinary.

Now, we don't know with absolute certainty where that gold is ultimately bound — but we know it isn't Switzerland. If we throw into the mix the widely covered movement of gold into China through HK, a picture begins to emerge of an incredible wave of physical metal heading from West to East, even as the price continues to languish.

One of the primary sources of supply in this steady transfer of physical bullion has been the GLD warehouse. I've touched on the subject of the incredible vanishing ETF gold holdings before, but it's worth revisiting the phenomenon and reminding readers of a chart I included in the July 16th edition of Things That Make You Go Hmmm…, entitled "What If?":

The gold in London is heading somewhere — and it's heading there via Switzerland, by the looks of it.

…

The chart below shows seasonal gold price performance since 1969. (Although the data stops at 2010, so that there are a couple of down years missing, the pattern is the important thing here.) I have laid the chart out from September to August to better illustrate the phase we are moving into.

October has traditionally been the weakest month of the year, while November through January has been the strongest period:

So, how does this all play out?

Well, I've been watching this situation unfold through most of this past year with an increasingly bemused look on my face, because the numbers just don't add up. But so far, despite clear evidence of massive demand for physical gold, "The Gold Price" has continued to trade poorly. However, the longer this situation persists, the more definitely it will resolve itself; and it's very hard to see how that resolution ends in anything but higher prices.

Demand levels from Asia continue to soar while production increases just a couple of percent each year; and leaving aside Indian festivals and increasing central bank purchases, the fiat alternative to gold bullion — the US dollar — is coming under renewed pressure in the wake of the Taper That Never Was and the appointment of Janet Yellen as Ben Bernanke's successor.

…

But, like the infatuation America had with the Monkees in 1967, this fascination with the fiat dollar will prove to be nothing more than a passing fad; and one day — perhaps soon — the citizens of the West will, like their cousins in Asia and the Indian subcontinent, realize that there really is no alternative to sound money.

The only problem is, when the realization finally dawns, where will all the gold be?

 

Full Grant Williams letter below:

TTMYGH – Let It Be Fiat Monkees & Golden Beatles.pdf

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/QaSa0Mi1L2w/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Submitted by James E. Miller of The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

These words, spoken by U.S. President Barack Obama in various forms and iterations, have become a running joke amidst the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. All across the country, hundreds of thousands of citizens are receiving cancellation notices in the mail. The stringent requirements for insurance plans under the new edict are curtailing many individual policies. A simpleton can grasp the economics: you prohibit something, it goes away. And yet, for years prior, the White House ignored the oncoming train and is now slowly inching away from the wreckage.

This was not the unforeseen consequence of good-intentioned legislation. According to an investigative report from NBC, the Obama Administration was fully aware of the result its health care bill would have on the marketplace for insurance. A provision written in the original version of the law would have allowed for the grandfathering of existing plans that did not meet the new standards. However, the Department of Health and Human Services rewrote the stipulation to radically narrow the rule, so that an estimated “40 to 67 percent of customers will not be able to keep their policy.” Not one to be a wet blanket, President Obama continued to assuage the public and reassure everyone that their preferred insurance policy would not being going away.

This was a lie. And not one kept close-to-the-chest by a few high-level officials. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer admitted that many in his party knew “there would be some policies that would not qualify and therefore people would be required to get more extensive coverage.” A presidential election and a litany of Senate seats were won based on the falsehood that America’s health insurance market would not be totally disturbed.

The admission of guilt may have ramifications for supporters of big government. In the short term, it undermines the President and the promises he makes going into the future. But voters are fickle and have a memory prone to lapses. When the subsidies start flowing, they will begin to smile again. The balancing act will be whether the boost in tax benefits outweighs being forced to pay a higher cost for what was once a cheaper product. Those who are net beneficiaries will be content while the losers may sulk but will ultimately accept the “new normal.”

The deceit behind ObamaCare is nothing new in the practice of governing. The state’s monopoly power makes it a natural target of suspicion. Even the most ardent worshiper of socialism is still wary that his nation’s controllers will turn on him. He keeps an ear out for fiction spun by his rulers but will not question larger injustice as long as he is fed well enough. Even with the preponderance of lies, there is still the naive hope “good folks” will soon come along who have a deep aversion to dishonesty. The white knight never arrives, but optimism prevails.

The happy voter is the one who refuses to grasp the obvious point that government serves as a vehicle for the worst in society to play out their violent fantasies. As Hayek put it, “the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful” in operating the machinery of total intimidation. It is always from the throne of authority that the worst deeds are accomplished. This includes mass aggression against property as well as the truth. The productive capacity of society is decimated enough by government’s necessarily parasitical operation; the public’s concept of verity is challenged by the various ministries of agitprop that disguise their actions as beneficial rather than schemes of plunder.

The false characterization needed to sustain Obama’s signature piece of legislation was another variation of Plato’s noble lie. In his widely heralded Republic, the classical philosopher wrote on the necessity of the few lording over the many to achieve harmonious social relationships. These “philosopher-kings” could govern best by spreading falsities that would have the “good effect” of making the underlings “more inclined to care for the state and one another.” One could call this a textbook lesson in the art of ruling over a dim and detached populace.

Perhaps the best exponent of the noble lie was the late, neoconservative king Irving Kristol, who held political theorist Leo Strauss as a strong intellectual influence. Kristol affirmed what many thinkers before him found when it comes to truth:

“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

In many ways, this statement is completely accurate. In a democracy, the people must be corralled. They must get behind measures that ordinarily wouldn’t receive a lick of support outside of a few special interests. The naked, unvarnished truth is a dangerous weapon against tyranny. So it must be distorted to fit the agenda of collectivists, statists, dictators, and despots. Anything will do to assure for maximum support with minimum resistance.

Had President Obama been upfront about the full ramifications of his health care edict, the public may have turned. It’s one thing to apply for and receive a subsidy. It’s another to disrupt lives and force people to take action they otherwise wouldn’t. Outside disturbances are a nuisance to common folks trying to make the best go at their lives. Like a dog with its tail between its legs, the Administration is now backtracking on its own selling point. In a recent press hearing, White House spokesman Jay Carney, the quivering apparatchik of social democracy, was quick to ignore past statements and highlight the benefits of the health care bill. He told Fox News correspondent Ed Henry,

Well, let’s just be clear, what the President said and what everybody said all along was that there were going to be changes under brought about by the Affordable Care Act that create minimum standards of coverage — minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide.

So goes the guarantee of “if you like it, you can keep it.” As progressive columnist Clarence Page admitted to radio host Hugh Hewitt, it was “one of those political lies, you know.” The promise will eventually find itself lodged somewhere in the memory hole along with the guarantee of liberty in a security state. The state itself is a great lie. It purports to be the great savior of mankind. The political class likens itself to the great deliverance from struggle and despair. The reality ends up not as rosy.

Kristol was right on one thing: not everyone accepts the truth. They will self-deceive to feel comfortable in their own skin. It is this weakness the politician will manipulate for his own aggrandizement. Honesty and truth are always a virtue. And that’s why they are wholly absent from the halls of power.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/5wJeBBuacIw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The last time we looked at global corporate cash flow and capex as a percentage of G4 (US, UK, Europe and Japan) things were bad. Two quarters later, things have gotten much worse, with that purest proxy of true growth, or lack thereof, corporate cash flow (and not fudged, adjusted, normalized, pro forma earnings), sliding yet again tracking the ongoing collapse in capex, and now down to levels last seen during 2009, and what’s worse going further back, all the way back to 2003 levels. In other words, even when taking into account the tens of trillions of liquidity injections by global central banks to prop up capital markets, the flow through to actual corporate cash flow has been non-existent, and the entire past decade is now a scratch despite the global asset price bubble rising to unprecedented new heights.

And just like last time, as we explained in early 2012, it is still the Fed’s fault.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/_OK1mRJP8n8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Note: The next three annual subscriptions (retail or professional) will get the opportunity to purchase their own pair of Google Glass Explorer Edition, through the Glass referral program. Click here to subscribe, and if you want to be referred to purchase your own pair of Glass then email me after payment.  

Last week in Reggie Middleton’s Apple Q4 2013 Analysis: RDF In Full Effect As Analysts & Press Go GaGa Over Garbage! I wrote:

Apple Still Has The Business and Financial Press Mesmerized With It’s RDF (Reality Distortion Field)

For some reason when I read management comments and financial statements I seem to see something totally different from Sell Side Analysts and the financial and business press. This is an excerpt from “Business Insider” on Apple’s Q4 earnings results:

The stock initially tanked after the numbers were out thanks to weaker than expected margin guidance. Apple guided to 36.5%-37.5%, which suggests a flat margin despite a new iPhone. 

On the company’s earnings call, it explained why margin was lighter than expected and the stock came roaring back. At last check it was down slightly in after hours trading. 

Apple’s margin will be hit by a combination of factors. It is selling new iPads that cost more to make, new laptops, foreign exchange issues, and most importantly, a $900 million sequential increase in deferred revenue thanks to all the software it is giving away with iOS and Macs. 

On the earnings call, Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray said the real margin would have been closer to 38.5%, and Apple basically confirmed it. This sent the stock climbing. 

Apple’s margins have been and will be hit harder as I’ve predicted.  This non-sense about the deferred revenue from giving away software and Gene Munster’s “real margin” comments are utter nonsense. Apple’s reported margin IS ITS “REAL MARGIN”! The reason it is giving away its core software products for free is to compete with the entry and the threat of Microsoft’s Surface 2 tablet that comes bundled with a real, the real, office suite – Microsoft Office. This makes it real deal contender in the enterprise, where Office is not on the de facto standard – it is the standard. It also has to compete with Google’s Android who bought Quick Office and is now giving that office suite for free. For those who don’t think that makes a difference, what OS do you think took the iPad from 92% market share in 2010 to 32% market share last quarter?

Let me add to this since both Gene Munster and I are both frequent CNBC guests:

gene munster aapl forecast

On the same network, I recommended an Apple short:

 

If you did this investment thing to actually make money, who do you think CNBC should have on more regularly???

Well, my analysis has been vindicated once again, as per the NextWeb: 

KitKat ships with Google’s Quickoffice, bringing Microsoft Office editing out of the box to all new Android users

With Android 4.4 KitKat, Google’s biggest blow to Microsoft isn’t against Windows Phone. It’s against Microsoft Office. You see, KitKat ships with Quickoffice, letting you edit Microsoft Office documents, spreadsheets, and presentations on the go, without paying a dime, straight out of the box.

This tidbit was largely lost in the news yesterday, given the large number of improvements and new features that KitKat offers. Yet it’s a very big deal: every Android user that upgrades to KitKat will get Google’s Quickoffice, and every new Android device (starting with the Nexus 5) that ships with KitKat or higher will get access to Quickoffice.

office anywhere 730×457 KitKat ships with Googles Quickoffice, bringing Microsoft Office editing out of the box to all new Android users

Google acquired Quickoffice back in June 2012. In December 2012, the company released Quickoffice for iPad, making it exclusively available for free to its Apps customers. In April 2013, it followed up with free Android and iPhone versionsfor Apps customers as well. Last month, Google released Quickoffice for free, making it available to all Android and iOS users.

Here’s what we wrote at the time:

Microsoft shot itself in the foot here. Sure it finally released Office Mobile for iOS in June and Office Mobile for Android in July, but there was one small problem: an Office 365 subscription was and still is required.

In other words, Microsoft matched Google’s deal. Now Google has hit back and undercut Microsoft once again, and this blow might be the biggest yet.

image078

Click here to subscribe or purchase this update. Paid subscribers click here:  Apple 4Q2013 preliminary update. As we wait for my elfin magicians and presdigitation analysts to finsih up on the updated valuation numbers, I’m quite comfortable in recommending subscribers adhere to the latest set of valuation numbers proffered in the last Apple update. 

Subscribers, download the Q3 2013 valuation reports (click here to subscribe).

•  Apple 3Q2013 Valuation Update – Retail
  (Technology)
•  Apple 3Q2013 Valuation Update – Pro & Institutional
  (Technology)

The update from two months ago is also of value for those who haven’t read it. It turns out that it was quite prescienct!

•  Apple 1Q2013 update – Pro & Institutional
  (Technology)
•  Apple 1Q2013 update – Retail
  (Technology)

See also:

What Sell Side Wall Street Doesn’t Understand About Apple – It’s Not The Leader Of The Post PC World!!!

 The short call – October 2012, the month of Apple’s all-time high and my call to subscribers to short the stock:  Deconstructing The Most Accurate Apple Analysis Ever Made – Share Price, Market Share, Strategy and All

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/WXwHP6Rpy8M/story01.htm Reggie Middleton

Note: The next three annual subscriptions (retail or professional) will get the opportunity to purchase their own pair of Google Glass Explorer Edition, through the Glass referral program. Click here to subscribe, and if you want to be referred to purchase your own pair of Glass then email me after payment.  

Last week in Reggie Middleton’s Apple Q4 2013 Analysis: RDF In Full Effect As Analysts & Press Go GaGa Over Garbage! I wrote:

Apple Still Has The Business and Financial Press Mesmerized With It’s RDF (Reality Distortion Field)

For some reason when I read management comments and financial statements I seem to see something totally different from Sell Side Analysts and the financial and business press. This is an excerpt from “Business Insider” on Apple’s Q4 earnings results:

The stock initially tanked after the numbers were out thanks to weaker than expected margin guidance. Apple guided to 36.5%-37.5%, which suggests a flat margin despite a new iPhone. 

On the company’s earnings call, it explained why margin was lighter than expected and the stock came roaring back. At last check it was down slightly in after hours trading. 

Apple’s margin will be hit by a combination of factors. It is selling new iPads that cost more to make, new laptops, foreign exchange issues, and most importantly, a $900 million sequential increase in deferred revenue thanks to all the software it is giving away with iOS and Macs. 

On the earnings call, Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray said the real margin would have been closer to 38.5%, and Apple basically confirmed it. This sent the stock climbing. 

Apple’s margins have been and will be hit harder as I’ve predicted.  This non-sense about the deferred revenue from giving away software and Gene Munster’s “real margin” comments are utter nonsense. Apple’s reported margin IS ITS “REAL MARGIN”! The reason it is giving away its core software products for free is to compete with the entry and the threat of Microsoft’s Surface 2 tablet that comes bundled with a real, the real, office suite – Microsoft Office. This makes it real deal contender in the enterprise, where Office is not on the de facto standard – it is the standard. It also has to compete with Google’s Android who bought Quick Office and is now giving that office suite for free. For those who don’t think that makes a difference, what OS do you think took the iPad from 92% market share in 2010 to 32% market share last quarter?

Let me add to this since both Gene Munster and I are both frequent CNBC guests:

gene munster aapl forecast

On the same network, I recommended an Apple short:

 

If you did this investment thing to actually make money, who do you think CNBC should have on more regularly???

Well, my analysis has been vindicated once again, as per the NextWeb: 

KitKat ships with Google’s Quickoffice, bringing Microsoft Office editing out of the box to all new Android users

With Android 4.4 KitKat, Google’s biggest blow to Microsoft isn’t against Windows Phone. It’s against Microsoft Office. You see, KitKat ships with Quickoffice, letting you edit Microsoft Office documents, spreadsheets, and presentations on the go, without paying a dime, straight out of the box.

This tidbit was largely lost in the news yesterday, given the large number of improvements and new features that KitKat offers. Yet it’s a very big deal: every Android user that upgrades to KitKat will get Google’s Quickoffice, and every new Android device (starting with the Nexus 5) that ships with KitKat or higher will get access to Quickoffice.

office anywhere 730×457 KitKat ships with Googles Quickoffice, bringing Microsoft Office editing out of the box to all new Android users

Google acquired Quickoffice back in June 2012. In December 2012, the company released Quickoffice for iPad, making it exclusively available for free to its Apps customers. In April 2013, it followed up with free Android and iPhone versionsfor Apps customers as well. Last month, Google released Quickoffice for free, making it available to all Android and iOS users.

Here’s what we wrote at the time:

Microsoft shot itself in the foot here. Sure it finally released Office Mobile for iOS in June and Office Mobile for Android in July, but there was one small problem: an Office 365 subscription was and still is required.

In other words, Microsoft matched Google’s deal. Now Google has hit back and undercut Microsoft once again, and this blow might be the biggest yet.

image078

Click here to subscribe or purchase this update. Paid subscribers click here:  Apple 4Q2013 preliminary update. As we wait for my elfin magicians and presdigitation analysts to finsih up on the updated valuation numbers, I’m quite comfortable in recommending subscribers adhere to the latest set of valuation numbers proffered in the last Apple update. 

Subscribers, download the Q3 2013 valuation reports (click here to subscribe).

•  Apple 3Q2013 Valuation Update – Retail
  (Technology)
•  Apple 3Q2013 Valuation Update – Pro & Institutional
  (Technology)

The update from two months ago is also of value for those who haven’t read it. It turns out that it was quite prescienct!

•  Apple 1Q2013 update – Pro & Institutional
  (Technology)
•  Apple 1Q2013 update – Retail
  (Technology)

See also:

What Sell Side Wall Street Doesn’t Understand About Apple – It’s Not The Leader Of The Post PC World!!!

 The short call – October 2012, the month of Apple’s all-time high and my call to subscribers to short the stock:  Deconstructing The Most Accurate Apple Analysis Ever Made – Share Price, Market Share, Strategy and All

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/WXwHP6Rpy8M/story01.htm Reggie Middleton

While Edward Snowden may be reviled at the top echelons of Western developed nations and is wanted in his native US on espionage charges for peeling back the curtain on how the gargantuan government machine truly works when it is not only engaged in chronic spying on anyone abroad, but worse, on its own people, the reality is that his whistleblowing revelations have done more to shift the narrative to the topic of dwindling individual liberties abused pervasively in the US and elsewhere, than anything else in recent years. And alongside that, have led to the first reform momentum of a system that is deeply broken. Which also happens to be the topic of a five-paragraph opinion piece he released today in German weekly Der Spiegel titled “A Manifesto For The Truth” in which he writes that his revelations have been useful and society will benefit from them and that he was therefore justified in revealing the methods and targets of the US secret service.

In the Op-Ed we read that “Instead of causing damage, the usefulness of the new public knowledge for society is now clear because reforms to politics, supervision and laws are being suggested.”

RT adds: “Spying as a global problem requires global solutions, he said, stressing that “criminal surveillance programs” by secret services threaten open societies, individual privacy and freedom of opinion.

“Citizens have to fight against the suppression of information about affairs of essential importance for the public,” Snowden said in his five-paragraph manifesto. Hence, “those who speak the truth are not committing a crime.”
Even with the existence of mass surveillance, spying should not define politics, Snowden said.

“We have a moral duty to ensure that our laws and values limit surveillance programs and protect human rights,” he wrote.

The type of persecution campaigns that governments started after being exposed, and threats of prosecution against journalists, who blew the whistle, were “a mistake” and did not “serve the public interest,” Snowden concluded.

But “at that time the public was not in a position to judge the usefulness of these revelations. People trusted that their governments would make the right decisions,” he said.

Needless to say, all of the above points are spot on, which is why one hopes that Snowden does not intend on returning to the US to defend himself with only truth and justice to lean on, because the US Judicial system is just as broken, if not more, as every other aspect of a tentacular government, intent on growing to even more epic proportions and silencing anyone and everyone who stands in its way.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Fi8MAtT_LiE/story01.htm Tyler Durden

While Edward Snowden may be reviled at the top echelons of Western developed nations and is wanted in his native US on espionage charges for peeling back the curtain on how the gargantuan government machine truly works when it is not only engaged in chronic spying on anyone abroad, but worse, on its own people, the reality is that his whistleblowing revelations have done more to shift the narrative to the topic of dwindling individual liberties abused pervasively in the US and elsewhere, than anything else in recent years. And alongside that, have led to the first reform momentum of a system that is deeply broken. Which also happens to be the topic of a five-paragraph opinion piece he released today in German weekly Der Spiegel titled “A Manifesto For The Truth” in which he writes that his revelations have been useful and society will benefit from them and that he was therefore justified in revealing the methods and targets of the US secret service.

In the Op-Ed we read that “Instead of causing damage, the usefulness of the new public knowledge for society is now clear because reforms to politics, supervision and laws are being suggested.”

RT adds: “Spying as a global problem requires global solutions, he said, stressing that “criminal surveillance programs” by secret services threaten open societies, individual privacy and freedom of opinion.

“Citizens have to fight against the suppression of information about affairs of essential importance for the public,” Snowden said in his five-paragraph manifesto. Hence, “those who speak the truth are not committing a crime.”
Even with the existence of mass surveillance, spying should not define politics, Snowden said.

“We have a moral duty to ensure that our laws and values limit surveillance programs and protect human rights,” he wrote.

The type of persecution campaigns that governments started after being exposed, and threats of prosecution against journalists, who blew the whistle, were “a mistake” and did not “serve the public interest,” Snowden concluded.

But “at that time the public was not in a position to judge the usefulness of these revelations. People trusted that their governments would make the right decisions,” he said.

Needless to say, all of the above points are spot on, which is why one hopes that Snowden does not intend on returning to the US to defend himself with only truth and justice to lean on, because the US Judicial system is just as broken, if not more, as every other aspect of a tentacular government, intent on growing to even more epic proportions and silencing anyone and everyone who stands in its way.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Fi8MAtT_LiE/story01.htm Tyler Durden

For all your Sunday morning chartporn needs.

Source: Goldman

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/be0N3DejAtw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Submitted by Michael Miner of The Diplomat,

A report by Bruce Bennett and the RAND Corporation has brought attention to one of the most important issues for international politics. Ironically, despite being a region of vital interest within American foreign policy, there has been very little public discussion of what to do in the event of government collapse in North Korea. Bennett’s timely report provides a series of vital contributions to the discussion and further outlines the lack of preparation in political, social, economic and military terms. Yet beyond the critical end game for the Korean peninsula are deeper questions concerning how any international force might respond. Specifically, how can the U.S. and Republic of Korea effectively mobilize regional powers with their differing security and development goals?

International cooperation can alleviate geopolitical tension and inform policymakers while sharpening the tools of statecraft in preparation for engaging the uncertainties of an all but certain crisis on the horizon. The U.S. must begin to consider the requirements of intervention – not to depose a totalitarian regime for the sake of an ideological crusade, but as pragmatic, necessary planning in the event weapons of mass destruction enter the calculus as a credible, serious danger.

Unpredictable North Korean rhetoric offers scant evidence for anticipating or understanding Pyongyang’s tightly managed system of control. Indeed, many revolutionary or transformational periods in history have been poorly anticipated by external actors whom otherwise might have played a more constructive role in their outcome. Invisible factional rivalries, natural or man-made disasters, and blurred lines of sovereign authority are only a few factors that might contribute to the collapse of the totalitarian system. Resulting anarchy involving weapons of mass destruction and the internal struggle for power should prompt the most serious concern. The event of nuclear use, or clear evidence of momentary launch, could escalate to outright conflict and plunge East Asia into a tumultuous period with unforeseen consequences. Yes, nuclear threats and open hostility follow a longstanding pattern of belligerent rhetoric from Pyongyang, but prolonged uncertainty only heightens the risk of miscalculation. A major crisis scenario that destabilizes the North Korean government and its mechanisms of control, no matter how unlikely, should prompt the international community to consider a multilateral framework for intervention.

Any comprehensive framework committed to stabilization and reconstruction must consider cross-cutting principles that can be directed toward achieving the desirable end state of a peaceful Korean peninsula. First, Seoul could lead the process of Korean unification backed by the political legitimacy of a democratic state faced with an imminent threat on its territorial border. A legitimate claim to self defense reinforces the long-term goal of Korean unification under the auspices of a self-sufficient and transparent democratic government, a favorable outcome quickly gaining traction in Beijing. Second, and most important to the international community, stability could be achieved through a unity of effort by regional security partners seeking to move the peninsula from conflict to a manageable level of development. Quelling a potentially transnational civil war involving weapons of mass destruction is a vital interest of regional neighbors and the international community alike. Finally, the incorporation of non-governmental organizations holds the potential to dramatically accelerate the process of modernization and diminish long-term social and economic inequalities that could manifest into political grievances following unification. Toward this end game, and before major reconstruction, any intervening force must achieve minimal levels of stability in terms of physical and human geography.

The first step toward planning a credible response is to consider the absence of a totalitarian regime previously possessing rigid control over territory, weapons of mass destruction, and the civilian population. Working under the assumption that Chinese and South Korean border issues could be mitigated by their respective militaries, and WMD tracked and secured by American military forces working alongside integrated allies, the preeminent question becomes one of human security. Specifically, how to deal with twenty million physically and psychologically scarred individuals as an operational challenge. Regardless of the ongoing struggle for power and stability, these individuals represent a major hurdle for any external force crossing the 38th parallel and constitute the bulk of human terrain. For many, their day-to-day lives reflect a permanent wartime experience, an existence on the edge that has defined families for more than three generations. Devout loyalty to the North Korean system is arguably so ingrained within many citizens, it is difficult to project how the majority of individuals would behave after the cataclysmic event of totalitarian collapse.

There would likely be a profound absence of the overarching stability that has come to define the norm within Pyongyang’s invasive culture of oppression. Beyond fundamental necessities of food, water, shelter and physical security, what unforeseen conditions might an external group encounter among the civilian population? The disintegration, or even transformation, of this familiar norm would potentially compound dangerous social, economic and political inadequacies while pushing individuals past an already desperate state of existence. To paraphrase experts, exposure to an event involving potential death or serious injury to the self or others leads to intense states of fear, helplessness or horror. Under this scenario, an outside group would likely encounter upwards of twenty million individuals suffering from the effects of severe grief and incapacitating post-traumatic stress disorder. These reactions might appear as abnormal reactions to normal stress, but inside the reality of North Korea, it would reflect a normal reaction to abnormal stress. Whether an intervening humanitarian force, or an individual state dealing with refugees fleeing across its border, responsible powers should not overlook such a traumatic moment for geopolitics.

Lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan point to a roadmap for civilian engagement strategies that could be applied though cooperative security action. Provincial reconstruction teams (PRT) represented a concerted effort to utilize joint civil-military teams to provide security and support development efforts during conflict and subsequent reconstruction. There have been three distinct models with varying composition that demonstrated different levels of effectiveness. In particular, the British model placed a high emphasis on civil-military integration and partnerships, in contrast to U.S. and German PRT models led by the military. The British model also had a high level of responsiveness to suggestions made by non-governmental organizations and other civilian organizations that specialized in the regional, cultural and social aspects of the operational environment. This cooperative aspect would be integral for any international force composed of distinct – and potentially rival – powers. Competitive realpolitik might further be dampened by sharing mission responsibilities and incorporating nongovernment organizations from each state involved – especially humanitarian organizations.

A larger variance of the British model could include units from regional security partners tasked with specific operational assignments dependent on capability. South Korea would take the lead in political and cultural affairs with the Ministry of Unification serving as the central governing authority working in tandem with local North Korean elements able to manage districts. The United States and China would be capable for providing major logistical and military support and, in addition to securing any weapons of mass destruction, assist South Korean forces in a shape, clear, and hold strategy with Seoul leading the building phase and directing international support to areas where it is most needed. This would represent an all-encompassing effort led by and for the Korean people to generate conflict-free zones of human development, areas paramount toward long-term stability where additional foreign aid could accelerate the healing process for a nation torn asunder for more than three generations.

Traditional units tasked with reconstruction could focus on adequate sources of fresh water and critical infrastructure. Japanese units with specialist medical and engineering equipment that performed admirably in the past could begin to tangibly mend historical divides between Seoul, Pyongyang and Tokyo. Currency guarantees and mechanisms for market stability could be implemented to address widespread looting, hording, black market trading, and increasing civil violence. North Korean political elites and individuals capable of assuming leadership positions in regional zones of development might be seconded as conduits for resource management. Outside specialist humanitarian units familiar with Korean culture would go a measurable way toward winning hearts and minds, or at least maintaining a sense of normalcy for a nation experiencing social, political, and economic trauma on a massive scale. Additional sociological attaches could only better equip forces to better redress problems as they arise: it could be a force multiplier. Indeed, the most effective force deployed alongside security teams might be a brigade of social scientists able to support field operations, an unconventional approach in many respects, but North Korea is the unconventional state of the modern era.

For the U.S., this reflects not only the reality of resource scarcity and austere military budgets, but is a better approach that draws on the expertise of non-government experts that comprehend social and economic dimensions better than many civil servants and military units spread across a wide assortment of responsibilities. Establishing cultural awareness and mapping the human terrain also creates major operational advantages for American forces. Burden sharing with South Korea, Japan and China not only alleviates stress on the United States, but can efficiently marshal capability without approaching the maximum, national effort often associated with the American way of war. Follow-up development efforts and foreign investment would also be most effectively applied when first directed by and for the Korean people. In concert with a limited military focus on security, these foundational partnerships can develop the capability and flexibility necessary for navigating the dangers of a major crisis on the Korean peninsula.

Nobody should actively seek intervention based solely on the rhetoric of human rights violations or ideological principles. Yet responsible great powers should prepare for the eventuality as seldom has a major crisis occurred with significant warning and the luxuries of foresight. Active stewardship can remedy grievous human rights violations, alleviate regional security concerns, and dampen great power competition. An evolving plan of action can equip the international community to deal with known challenges while simultaneously developing the organizational capacity to marshal an effective response to the unknown dynamics that emerge during a crisis. A credible plan of action might also encourage more responsible behavior by the Kim regime and decrease the likelihood of any major crisis requiring intervention. Zeroing in on the core human security dynamics that impact the day-to-day lives of each individual is the first step toward crafting a more complete picture of the humanitarian crisis in the Hermit Kingdom. Preparing for the unthinkable is not a simple moral imperative, but responsible leadership in the twenty-first century.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/tV_LS8M6DSA/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Having done a bang up job in Syria, where Obama nearly started world war III so Qatar could send its natgas to Europe at a lower price than  Gazprom’s, while alienating America’s legacy allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and ensuring its enemies see it even weaker in the international arena following Obama’s schooling by Putin, the US president continues to win friends abroad (while spying there, here and everywhere, namely the Pope) with the latest snafu coming from Pakistan, another former ally, where America just droned the leader of the Taliban fighters on Saturday, leaving his body “damaged but recognizable”. 

In response the Taliban – once upon a time another close ally of the CIA and especially their one time leader, Osama bin Laden – quickly moved to replace him while vowing a wave of revenge suicide bombings: because what the US needed right now is even more potential terrorism. But not before the outraged Pakistani government, insulted that the US continues to take whatever liberties on its territory it chooses, summoned the US ambassador, although not for another instance of NSA spying, but due to America’s penchant for delivering not so targeted mass executions around the world by remote control.

From Reuters:

The Pakistani government denounced the killing of Hakimullah Mehsud as a U.S. bid to derail planned peace talks and summoned the U.S. ambassador to protest. Some lawmakers demanded the blocking of U.S. supply lines into Afghanistan in retaliation.

 

“The murder of Hakimullah is the murder of all efforts at peace,” said Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar. “Americans said they support our efforts at peace. Is this support?”

Not really, although if Pakistan had read the Xinhua oped from Friday it would know that already.

Mehsud, who had a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head, and three others were killed on Friday in the militant stronghold of Miranshah in northwest Pakistan.

 

Mehsud’s vehicle was hit after he attended a meeting of Taliban leaders, a Pakistani Taliban fighter said, adding that Mehsud’s body was “damaged but recognizable“. His bodyguard and driver were also killed.

 

He was secretly buried under cover of darkness in the early hours by a few companions amid fears that his funeral might be attacked by U.S. drones, militants and security sources said.

And here is why the US globocop policy of droning anyone it chooses abroad always backfires.

“Every drop of Hakimullah’s blood will turn into a suicide bomber,” said Azam Tariq, a Pakistani Taliban spokesman. “America and their friends shouldn’t be happy because we will take revenge for our martyr’s blood.”

Maybe not America, but its leaders who thrive on a culture of constant fear from “terrorism”, even when it is openly provoked, should. Especially when the target is Al Qaeda which is a strategic friend in some cases (Syria), and the worst foe when a Bogeyman is needed:

Mehsud took over as leader of the al Qaeda-linked Pakistani Taliban in 2009. The group’s two previous leaders were killed in attacks by U.S. missile-firing drones. Taliban commanders said they wanted to replace him with the movement’s number two, Khan Said, who is also known as Sajna.

 

Said is believed to have masterminded an attack on a jail in northwest Pakistan that freed nearly 400 prisoners in 2012 and a big attack on a Pakistani naval base.

 

But some commanders were unhappy with the choice and wanted more talks, several militants said, indicating divisions within the Pakistani Taliban, an umbrella group of factions allied with the Afghan Taliban and battling the Pakistani state in the hope of imposing Islamist rule.

 

The Pakistani Taliban killed an army general in September, has beheaded Pakistani soldiers and killed thousands of civilians in suicide bombings. The group also directed a failed attempt to bomb Times Square in New York.

Hopefully all futures attempts to bomb Times Square will likewise be “failed” courtesy of the NSA’s undying vigilance.

And since every US action abroad has an immediate reaction, the Pakistani government has already clarified it will make US strategic intervention in the region that much more difficult:

The Pakistani foreign office said in a statement on Saturday Mehsud’s death was “counter-productive to Pakistan’s efforts to bring peace and stability to Pakistan and the region”.

 

Shah Farman, a spokesman for the government of the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, said provincial lawmakers would pass a resolution on Monday to cut NATO supply lines into landlocked Afghanistan. A major one passes through the nearby Khyber Pass.

 

The supply lines through U.S. ally Pakistan have been crucial since the latest Afghan war began in 2001 and remain vital as the United States and other Western forces prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of next year.

Finally, for those wondering just how big the US drone presence in the region is, the answer is: very.

Residents of Miranshah, the capital of the North Waziristan region on the Afghan border, said Pakistani Taliban fighters were converging on the town and firing furiously at drones buzzing high in the sky.

 

About eight drones were seen overhead as well as a larger aircraft that seemed to be an aeroplane or a type of drone that residents said they had not seen before.

 

“We thought it was a C-130 aircraft but it was a special spy plane, bigger in size,” resident Farhad Khan said by telephone from Miranshah. “The militants fired from their anti-aircraft guns to hit it but couldn’t.”

 The good news: for now the US is focusing its droning powers abroad. Hopefully that, too, doesn’t change any time soon.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/F77RxkjqvsM/story01.htm Tyler Durden