Monday, 31 August 2015

The Dying Institutions Of Western Civilization - PaulCraigRoberts.org

The Dying Institutions Of Western Civilization - PaulCraigRoberts.org

nothing is left
Paul Craig Roberts
Judiciary Branch Has Self-Abolished
The US no longer has a judiciary. This former branch of government has transitioned into an enabler of executive branch fascism.
Privacy is a civil liberty protected by the US Constitution. The Constitution relies on courts to enforce its prohibitions against intrusive government, but if the executive branch claims (no proof required) “national security,” courts kiss the Constitution good-bye.
Federal judges are chosen by the executive branch. The senate can refuse to confirm, but that is rare. The executive branch chooses judges who are friendly to executive power. This is especially the case for the appeals courts and the Supreme Court. The Justice (sic) Department keeps tabs on district court judges who rule against the government, and these judges don’t make it to the higher courts. The result over time is to erode civil liberty.
Recently a three-judge panel of the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Security Agency can continue its mass surveillance of the US population without showing cause. The panel avoided the constitutional question by ruling on procedural terms that NSA had a right to withhold the information that would prove the plaintiffs’ case.
By refusing to extend the section of the USA PATRIOT Act—a name that puts a patriotic sheen on Orwellian totalitarianism—that gave carte blanche to the NSA and by passing the USA Freedom Act, Congress attempted to give NSA’s spying a constitutional patina. The USA Freedom Act allows the telecom companies to spy on us and collect all of our communications data and for NSA to access the data by obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. The Freedom Act protects constitutional procedures by requiring NSA to go through the motions, but it does not prevent telecom companies from invading our privacy in behalf of NSA.

RESOURCE CRISIS: Why Johnny can't understand climate: functional il...

RESOURCE CRISIS: Why Johnny can't understand climate: functional il...: Image from OECD Skills Outlook 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en . These data show that most people in OECD countries ha...

Say Goodbye to Normal | KUNSTLER

Say Goodbye to Normal | KUNSTLER



The tremors rattling markets are not exactly what they seem to be. A meme prevails that these movements represent a kind of financial peristalsis — regular wavelike workings of eternal progress toward an epic more of everything, especially profits! You can forget the supposedly “normal” cycles of the techno-industrial arrangement, which means, in particular, the business cycle of the standard economics textbooks. Those cycle are dying.
They’re dying because there really are Limits to Growth and we are now solidly in grips of those limits. Only we can’t recognize the way it is expressing itself, especially in political terms. What’s afoot is a not “recession” but a permanent contraction of what has been normal for a little over two hundred years. There is not going to be more of everything, especially profits, and the stock buyback orgy that has animated the corporate executive suites will be recognized shortly for what it is: an assest-stripping operation.
What’s happening now is a permanent contraction. Well, of course, nothing lasts forever, and the contraction is one phase of a greater transition. The cornucopians and techno-narcissists would like to think that we are transitioning into an even more lavish era of techno-wonderama — life in a padded recliner tapping on a tablet for everything! I don’t think so. Rather, we’re going medieval, and we’re doing it the hard way because there’s just not enough to go around and the swollen populations of the world are going to be fighting over what’s left.

More Bone-Smoking Garbage « The Burning Platform

More Bone-Smoking Garbage « The Burning Platform



Guest Post by Karl Denninger

I read this twice before realizing the last name of the author perfectly fit the so-called “fix” for 2008 — and the premise that “they could do that again.”
By the end of the week, stocks, currencies and commodity prices weren’t crashing any longer but financial markets were far from settled. Over the past 10 days, markets have plummeted, paused, recovered and fallen again. There’s little sign the anxiety is lifting.
Until recently investors had been preoccupied with the weakness of the post-2008 recovery. Now some are asking whether 2008 might come round again. It’s an especially disturbing possibility because, on the face of it, the policy options for responding to another slump are fewer than last time. Governments have run big budget deficits to support demand, so there’s less so-called fiscal space for a new round of stimulus, or so the thinking goes. Interest rates are still at zero, and even the advocates of quantitative easing recognize that it ran into diminishing returns. What’s left?
Clive goes on to raise the old flag once again; that the “effective remedies” could once again be trotted out.
There’s a problem with this premise: They didn’t work the last time.
My evidence?  All of those measures are still in place!

Manipulation = Fragility | Zero Hedge

Manipulation = Fragility | Zero Hedge



In markets distorted by permanent manipulation the most powerful incentive is to borrow as much money as you can and leverage it as much as you can to maximize your gains in risk-on asset bubbles.
A core dynamic is laying waste to global financial markets: the greater the level of central bank/government manipulation, the greater the systemic fragility.
One key characteristic of this fragility is that it invisibly accumulates beneath the surface stability until some minor disturbance cracks the thinning layer of apparent stability. At that point, the system destabilizes, as it has been hollowed out by ceaseless manipulation, a.k.a. intervention.
There are a number of moving parts to this dynamic of steadily increasing fragility.
One is that any system quickly habituates to the manipulation, that is, the system soon adds the manipulation to its essential inputs.
For example: if you lower interest rates to near-zero, the system soon needs near-zero interest rates to remain stable. Raising rates even a mere percentage point threatens to fatally disrupt the entire system.
Another is that permanent intervention (i.e. manipulation, or to use a less threatening word, managementstrips the system of resilience. When participants are rescued from risk by central bank/central state authorities, they take bigger and bigger gambles, knowing that if the bet goes south, the central bank/state will rush to their rescue.
One of the core sources of resilience is a healthy fear of losses. If you're going to face the consequences of your actions and choices, prudence forces you to either hedge your bets or diversify very broadly, so if bets in one sector go south you won't be wiped out.
Thanks to the permanent manipulation of central banks and states, trillions of dollars have concentrated in high-risk, high-yield carry trades that are now blowing up.
A third source of fragility in manipulated financial systems is the perverse incentives generated by cheap credit and assets bubbles. In markets distorted by permanent manipulation--near-zero interest rates, central bank asset purchases, quantitative easing, etc.--the most powerful incentive is to borrow as much money as you can and leverage it as much as you can to maximize your gains in risk-on asset bubbles.
Why this increases system fragility is obvious: when the bubbles pop, the debt has to be paid back. But once the assets drop enough, selling won't raise enough money to pay back the debt.
At that point, the borrowers are bankrupt, and the dominoes of debt topple the entire financial system.

Sunday, 30 August 2015

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Blame the Federal Reserve, Not China, for Stock Market Crash

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Blame the Federal Reserve, Not China, for Stock Market Crash



written by Ron Paul

Sunday august 30, 2015



Following Monday’s historic stock market downturn, many politicians and so-called economic experts rushed to the microphones to explain why the market crashed and to propose "solutions” to our economic woes. Not surprisingly, most of those commenting not only failed to give the right answers, they failed to ask the right questions.



Many blamed the crash on China’s recent currency devaluation. It is true that the crash was caused by a flawed monetary policy. However, the fault lies not with China’s central bank but with the US Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies distort the economy, creating bubbles, which in turn create a booming stock market and the illusion of widespread prosperity. Inevitably, the bubble bursts, the market crashes, and the economy sinks into a recession.



An increasing number of politicians have acknowledged the flaws in our monetary system. Unfortunately, some members of Congress think the solution is to force the Fed to follow a “rules-based” monetary policy. Forcing the Fed to “follow a rule” does not change the fact that giving a secretive central bank the power to set interest rates is a recipe for economic chaos. Interest rates are the price of money, and, like all prices, they should be set by the market, not by a central bank and certainly not by Congress.



Cont..... 


WHY WE NEED TO LIE TO OURSELVES ABOUT THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY « The Burning Platform

WHY WE NEED TO LIE TO OURSELVES ABOUT THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY « The Burning Platform



by Satyajit Das for The Sydney Morning Herald



Like the characters in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, the world awaits the return of wealth and prosperity. But the global economy may be entering a period of stagnation.



Over the last 35 years, the economic growth necessary to increase living standards, increase wealth and manage growing inequality has been based increasingly on rising borrowings and financial rather than real engineering. There was reliance on debt-driven consumption. It resulted in global trade and investment imbalances, such as that between China and the US or Germany and the rest of Europe.



Everybody conspires to ignore the underlying problem, cover it up, or devise deferral strategies to kick the can down the road.



Citizens demanded and governments allowed the build-up of retirement and healthcare entitlements as well as public services to win or maintain office. The commitments were rarely fully funded by taxes or other provisions.



The 2008 global financial crisis was a warning of the unstable nature of these arrangements. But there has been no meaningful change. Since 2007, global debt has grown by US$57 trillion, or 17 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product. In many countries, debt has reached unsustainable levels, and it is unclear how or when it is to be reduced without defaults that would wipe out large amounts of savings.



Imbalances remain. Entitlement reform has proved politically difficult. Financial institutions and activity dominate many economies.





The official policy is “extend and pretend”, whereby everybody conspires to ignore the underlying problem, cover it up, or devise deferral strategies to kick the can down the road. The assumption was that government spending, lower interest rates and supplying abundant cash to the money markets would create growth. While the measures did stabilise the economy, they did not lead to a full recovery. Instead, they set off dangerous asset price bubbles in shares, bonds, real estate and even fine arts and collectibles.



Economic problems are now compounded by lower population growth and ageing populations; slower increases in productivity and innovation; looming shortages of critical resources, such as water, food and energy; and man-made climate change and extreme weather conditions. Slower growth in international trade and capital flows is another retardant. Emerging markets, such as China, that have benefited from and recently supported growth are slowing. Rising inequality affects economic activity.



For most people, the effect of these problems is unemployment, reduced job security, the deskilling of many professions and stagnant incomes. Home ownership is increasingly out of reach for many. Retirement may become a luxury for all but a few, reflecting increasing difficulty in building sufficient savings. In effect, living standards will decline. Future generations will bear the bulk of the cost as they are left to tackle the unresolved problems of their forebears.



Governments are unwilling to tell the truth about the magnitude of the economic problems, the lack of solutions and cost of possible corrective actions to the electorate. Politicians have taken regard of historian Simon Schama’s comment that no one ever won an election by telling voters it had come to the end of its “providential allotment of inexhaustible plenty”. The official policy articulated, in a moment of unusual candour, by Jean-Claude Juncker, the current head of the European Commission, was that when the situation becomes serious it is simply necessary to lie.



Ordinary people are complicit; refusing to acknowledge that maybe you cannot have it all. They sense that the ultimate cost of the inevitable adjustments will be large. It is not simply the threat of economic hardship; it is fear of a loss of dignity and pride. It is a pervasive sense of powerlessness.



The political and social response is likely to be volatile. It was the fear and disaffection of the middle class who had lost their savings in the events of Great Depression that gave rise to totalitarianism.



For the moment, to paraphrase Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the “permanent lie [has become] the only safe form of existence”. But the world cannot postpone, indefinitely, dealing decisively with the economic, resource management, social and political challenges we face.



Satyajit Das is a former banker and author. His latest book A Banquet of Consequences was published on August 26. 

The End Of "The Permanent Lie" Looms Large | Zero Hedge

The End Of "The Permanent Lie" Looms Large | Zero Hedge



Like the characters in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, the world awaits the return of wealth and prosperity. But the global economy may be entering a period of stagnation.
Over the last 35 years, the economic growth necessary to increase living standards, increase wealth and manage growing inequality has been based increasingly on rising borrowings and financial rather than real engineering. There was reliance on debt-driven consumption. It resulted in global trade and investment imbalances, such as that between China and the US or Germany and the rest of Europe.
Everybody conspires to ignore the underlying problem, cover it up, or devise deferral strategies to kick the can down the road.
Citizens demanded and governments allowed the build-up of retirement and healthcare entitlements as well as public services to win or maintain office. The commitments were rarely fully funded by taxes or other provisions.
The 2008 global financial crisis was a warning of the unstable nature of these arrangements. But there has been no meaningful change. Since 2007, global debt has grown by US$57 trillion, or 17 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product. In many countries, debt has reached unsustainable levels, and it is unclear how or when it is to be reduced without defaults that would wipe out large amounts of savings.
Imbalances remain. Entitlement reform has proved politically difficult. Financial institutions and activity dominate many economies.
The official policy is “extend and pretend”, whereby everybody conspires to ignore the underlying problem, cover it up, or devise deferral strategies to kick the can down the road. The assumption was that government spending, lower interest rates and supplying abundant cash to the money markets would create growth. While the measures did stabilise the economy, they did not lead to a full recovery. Instead, they set off dangerous asset price bubbles in shares, bonds, real estate and even fine arts and collectibles.
Economic problems are now compounded by lower population growth and ageing populations; slower increases in productivity and innovation; looming shortages of critical resources, such as water, food and energy; and man-made climate change and extreme weather conditions. Slower growth in international trade and capital flows is another retardant. Emerging markets, such as China, that have benefited from and recently supported growth are slowing. Rising inequality affects economic activity.
For most people, the effect of these problems is unemployment, reduced job security, the deskilling of many professions and stagnant incomes. Home ownership is increasingly out of reach for many. Retirement may become a luxury for all but a few, reflecting increasing difficulty in building sufficient savings. In effect, living standards will decline. Future generations will bear the bulk of the cost as they are left to tackle the unresolved problems of their forebears.
Governments are unwilling to tell the truth about the magnitude of the economic problems, the lack of solutions and cost of possible corrective actions to the electorate. Politicians have taken regard of historian Simon Schama’s comment that no one ever won an election by telling voters it had come to the end of its “providential allotment of inexhaustible plenty”. The official policy articulated, in a moment of unusual candour, by Jean-Claude Juncker, the current head of the European Commission, was that when the situation becomes serious it is simply necessary to lie.
Ordinary people are complicit; refusing to acknowledge that maybe you cannot have it all. They sense that the ultimate cost of the inevitable adjustments will be large. It is not simply the threat of economic hardship; it is fear of a loss of dignity and pride. It is a pervasive sense of powerlessness.
The political and social response is likely to be volatile. It was the fear and disaffection of the middle class who had lost their savings in the events of Great Depression that gave rise to totalitarianism.
For the moment, to paraphrase Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the “permanent lie [has become] the only safe form of existence”. But the world cannot postpone, indefinitely, dealing decisively with the economic, resource management, social and political challenges we face.

American, not Russian, aggression is the real problem — RT Op-Edge

American, not Russian, aggression is the real problem — RT Op-Edge



Published time: 30 Aug, 2015 14:59

Edited time: 30 Aug, 2015 16:21





Russia didn’t want a new Cold War. The myth of a “revanchist Russia” is convenient spin. The real issue is American interventionism.



Ordinary Russians generally like and admire American culture. They consume American TV and movies. Teenagers in Siberia follow the street fashion of New York. Even in isolated Yakutia you will find people who can rap along to Kanye West or Jay Z. Many older people can manage a few bars of Elvis or Sinatra.



The reverse is not true in the States. Few Americans could quote a bit of Pushkin. In fact, most US citizens have probably not even heard of him. Or Pasternak. Or Tolstoy. Regrettably, if you ask an average American for an opinion on Russia, the current likely answer is something that depicts the nation as their enemy.



This is very, very sad. Especially when Russia has no desire to be an enemy of the US and is not a threat to any genuine American interests. Actually, Russia is not even much of a danger to most of the things it’s supposed to be a danger to. Like the Baltic States, for instance. Or the EU project.



However, relentless anti-Russia propaganda in the US corporate media has brought us to this point. American elites are now more united in their disdain for Russia than they ever were during the Cold War. During that period, dissenting voices were heard. Now, they are completely frozen out.



Indeed, anybody with any real knowledge of Russia is condemned as “Putin’s shill” these days. Even academic heavyweights like Stephen Cohen. Thus, we have the bizarre situation where most American mainstream media commentators on Russia are people who have either never lived in the country or haven’t been there for years. Or both. If old Joe McCarthy himself was around, he’d be on CNN every five minutes.



Cont..... 

So What Part of ‘Stupid’ Did You Miss? « The Burning Platform

So What Part of ‘Stupid’ Did You Miss? « The Burning Platform



Guest Post by Karl Denninger



Sigh…



Stephanie Ritter, a 26-year-old Florida State University alum, has listed her diploma on eBay for the staggering sum to cover the ‘actual cost’ of attending the school.



Now $40,000 in debt and living in Southern California, Stephanie is fed up with being unable to find a job in her field, despite having a Bachelor’s degree – so she’s come up with a drastic solution to pay off her loans and ‘validate my use of time between 2007-2011’.



She took $40,000 in debt to study…. theater.



Seriously.  Theater.



What did she think she was going to do with that degree that was worth the money?



This, in the end, is the problem — universities and other “higher educational” institutions, including High Schools for that matter, that push people to get a degree — any degree.  What’s missing from that discussion is any sort of honest examination of the degree itself and what it does for your earnings potential.



An utterly huge percentage of “degrees” today are worth exactly zero.  Most humanities degrees are in this realm; “sociology”, “woman’s studies”, “african-american studies” and similar “fields” are simply worth zero.



So where did she get this idea from?  Let me guess: Her parents and/or High School?



Here’s my suggestion: If you encourage someone — or fail to warn them, having a position of authority (such as a parent, high school counselor or similar) in regard to such a person who is not yet an adult to go chase such a “dream” while going into debt, you should be forced to cover it with your retirement funds so you get to go live in a refrigerator box under a freeway overpass.



And if you don’t have it?  Then said student should eat you.

Saturday, 29 August 2015

Canadian Warplanes Accused of Killing Iraqi Civilians -- News from Antiwar.com

Canadian Warplanes Accused of Killing Iraqi Civilians -- News from Antiwar.com



January Strikes in Mosul the Subject of US Investigation

by Jason Ditz, August 28, 2015





Early in their involvement in the air war against ISIS, Canadian military officials were insisting regularly that they were “confident” no civilians were being killed in any of the strikes. This was in keeping with the Pentagon narrative, that irrespective of allegations of a huge toll, none of the dead were civilians.



While the public denials sort of died down after awhile, the Canadian military never really addressed the matter again, and now it is revealed that Canadian pilots actually were accused, in mid-January, of killing civilians on the outskirts of Mosul, but the military didn’t discuss the issue.



Defense Minister Jason Kenney even told reporters earlier this month that he was “not aware” of a single allegation of civilian deaths, even though the military is now conceding that they knew of the allegations since January. It is unclear if they kept the DM in the dark on the matter.



The new revelations are that the Pentagon actually carried out an investigation into the reported killings, though the Canadian military insists they don’t have enough information on the incident to conduct an investigation of their own, and called for anyone with information to “come forward.”

Long exposure to tiny amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup may damage liver, kidneys – study — RT USA

Long exposure to tiny amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup may damage liver, kidneys – study — RT USA



Long-term intake of the Monsanto’s most popular Roundup herbicide, even in very small amounts lower than permissible in US water, may lead to kidney and liver damage, a new study claims.

The research, conducted by an international group of scientists from the UK, Italy and France, studied the effects of prolonged exposure to small amounts of the Roundup herbicide and one of its main components – glyphosate.



In their study, published in Environmental Health on August 25, the scientists particularly focused on the influence of Monsanto’s Roundup on gene expression in the kidneys and liver.



In the new two-year study, which extended the findings from one conducted in 2012, the team added tiny amounts of Roundup to water that was given to rats in doses much smaller than allowed in US drinking water.



Scientists say that some of the rats experienced “25 percent body weight loss, presence of tumors over 25 percent bodyweight, hemorrhagic bleeding, or prostration.”



Cont.... 

WTEverlovingF? « The Burning Platform

WTEverlovingF? « The Burning Platform



Guest Post by Karl Denninger

The spotlight and the magnifying glass have been on tech companies’ dismal diversity numbers for the past year.
Hiring diverse candidates shouldn’t have to be a struggle. Yet, the latest numbers from companies like Facebook and Intel show that the needle is barely moving.
As a result, there’s a new position in fashion within tech company c-suites: say hello to the head of diversity.
Who gives a crap about diversity.  Hiring is about exactly one thing — finding the best candidate for the job.
Period.
Anything else makes you a sub-par performer in the end, and that means the shark eats you.
I don’t give a flying **** what anyone thinks about such horsecrap.  It means exactly zero, other than political correctness at the expense of operating efficiency and, I might add, both revenue and profits.
Any business that has such a position is one that I will not patronize if I have alternatives, because that firm has already demonstrated by its actions that excellence is not in its DNA — instead, it is far more worried about whether there is “diversity.”
Well, my money gets spent where I get the best bang for my buck, and that’s never where “diversity” is valued first, or even at all.  No, what I value is efficiency and excellence, and I don’t give a damn about anyone’s race, color, creed or anything else — only that they are the best candidate for whatever position is in question.
If that’s not your view then get the hell off my lawn.

Friday, 28 August 2015

Dis-Integrating America — Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website

Dis-Integrating America — Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website



By Patrick J. Buchanan
The Wednesday morning murders of 24-year-old Roanoke TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, 27, were a racist atrocity, a hate crime. Were they not white, they would be alive today.
Their killer, Vester L. Flanagan II, said as much in his farewell screed. He ordered his murder weapon, he said, two days after the slaughter of nine congregants at the African-American AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.
“What sent me over the top was the church shooting,” said Flanagan.
To be sure, racism does not fully explain why Flanagan, fired from that same WDBJ7 station, committed this act of pure evil.

Cocaine Production Plummets After DEA Kicked Out Of Bolivia | Zero Hedge

Cocaine Production Plummets After DEA Kicked Out Of Bolivia | Zero Hedge



Submitted by John Vibes via TheAntiMedia.org,



After the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was kicked out of Bolivia, the country was able to drastically reduce the amount of coca (cocaine) produced within its borders. According to data released by the United Nations, cocaine production in the country declined by 11% in the past year, marking the fourth year in a row of steady decrease.



It was just seven years ago that the DEA left Bolivia — and only three years after that, progress was finally made. The strategy employed by the Bolivian government may be a surprise to many prohibitionists because it did not involve any strong-arm police state tactics. Instead, they worked to find alternative crops for farmers to grow that would actually make them more money.



“Bolivia has adopted a policy based on dialogue, where coca cultivation is allowed in traditional areas alongside alternative development [in others],” Antonino de Leo, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s representative in Bolivia, told VICE News.



“It’s not only about making money off a crop. In the old fashioned alternative development approach, we substitute one illicit crop for a licit crop. It’s about a more comprehensive approach that includes access to essential services like schools, hospitals, and roads in areas that traditionally have been hard to reach,” Leo added.



There are unfortunately still harsh laws against drug trafficking in Bolivia, but these have been active since the height of the drug war and have had no effect on the recent decline in production. Bolivian president, Evo Morales — a former coca farmer himself — has been less heavy handed since the DEA left the country, a move that allowed the government to develop alternatives for the struggling farmers instead.



The drug war is one of the most misunderstood subjects in mainstream political discourse, even among people who are sympathetic to the plight of responsible drug users. It is rare for someone to come out and say that all drugs should be legal, but in all honesty, this is the only logically consistent stance on the issue. To say that some drugs should be legal while others should not is still giving credence to the punishment paradigm and overlooking the external consequences of drug prohibition — or prohibition of any object, for that matter.



As I explained in an earlier article, there are many external factors that are affected by the drug war that many people don’t take into account. That is because when you carry out acts of violence, even in the form of punishment, you then create a ripple effect that extends far beyond the bounds of the original circumstance to affect many innocent people down the line. The list in my previous article delves into those external factors to illustrate how drug users and non-users alike would be a lot better off if prohibition ended immediately.



The list includes the following advantages of full legalization:



(1) Reduce violent crime



(2) Improve seller accountability and drug safety



(3) Reduce drug availability to children



(4) Reduce nonviolent prisoner population



(5) Real crime can be dealt with



(6) Encourage genuine treatment for addicts



(7) Prevent drug overdoses



(8) Protect individual rights

3 Things Sheeple Do That You Don’t Have To | The Daily Sheeple

3 Things Sheeple Do That You Don’t Have To | The Daily Sheeple



Do you ever get that feeling like you’re surrounded by automatons, people who merely mimic life, without really living it?



Sheeple, as they may be called, are otherwise ordinary folks who’ve adapted particularly well to the workforce/consumer/obedience training agenda. They’ve been taught to be docile, foolish and easily led. They’re particularly keen at following mainstream narratives and adapting to group-think and group-behaviors. Almost criminally uninformed at times, they are predictable, obedient, gullible, and uninquisitive, always doing their part to sustain the cultural power dynamic by policing and enslaving themselves and staying focused on whatever tasks have been given them. The primary rewards for their acquiesence being comfort and the illusion of security.



Sheeple are everywhere, to be sure, but a tremendous counter movement is rising in opposition to this engineered madness. The amount of people waking up is truly inspiring, and a big part of this transformation is a growing awareness of just how much of what we do and what we think is not actually born of original thought, but rather instructed by cultural programs scripted by industry, government and the psychopaths at the helm of spaceship earth. Waking up from this is a certainty, once awareness of it kicks in.



Here are 3 things that sheeple do that you don’t have to...... 

US Deficit Will More than Double over the next 10 Years | The Daily Sheeple

US Deficit Will More than Double over the next 10 Years | The Daily Sheeple



Earlier this year the Treasury Department made a stunning announcement. The US Government’s budget deficit had fallen to the lowest level in 7 years, down to $412 billion, despite increases in government spending. This was $79 billion less than last year, and marks the most financially sound year of the Obama administration. Given those numbers, you’d be forgiven for thinking that our government’s debt problem was finally being resolved.



In reality, our unfunded liabilities will all but obliterate that progress in the years ahead. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that the US deficit will more than double in the next ten years. The CBO believes that government revenue will continue to increase, and will reach $5 trillion by 2025, which would be roughly 50% higher than it is today. However, government spending will grow at a much greater rate, and will increase faster than economic growth. “Later in the coming decade, under current law, growth in outlays would outstrip growth in the economy; outlays would rise to 22 percent of GDP in 2022 and remain at that level through 2025.”



By 2025, the US Government will have a $1 trillion deficit, which would be a 135% percent increase from today’s deficit. The CBO also expects interest rates to rise significantly over the next 10 years. And these numbers don’t seem to take into account the possibility of an economic downturn. The last recession managed to push our deficit well above $1 trillion. If anything bad happens to our economy over the next 10 years (which is practically guaranteed) our government’s debt will be astronomical.

The Scariest Number For The Oil Industry: $550 Billion | Zero Hedge

The Scariest Number For The Oil Industry: $550 Billion | Zero Hedge



Just over half a trillion dollars: that's how much cash oil industry companies will need to repay in maturing debt over the next 5 years.
Specifically, according to BMI Research cited by Bloomberg, there is $72 billion in oil-related debt maturing this year, $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, and a total of $550 billion in bonds and loans through 2020.
This is a problem because while paying annual interest is one thing and easily manageable, rolling over debt when it is yielding over 10% - as is the case for over 168 global companies, or triple last year's number - is virtually impossible. It is an even bigger problem when considering the recent surge in energy company net debt/EBITDA (shown below in red) which has recently hit an all time high, surpassing the oil sector crisis of 1999, dragging energy sector credit risk and spreads with it to all time highs.

The Great Wall Of Money | Zero Hedge

The Great Wall Of Money | Zero Hedge



Excerpted from Hindesight Letters (authored by Ben Davis),



China is in severe trouble and that trouble has already been reverberating around EM exporters for a number of years. It is just one of many dollar currency peg countries that have experienced tightening conditions because of higher US interest rate guidance and dollar strength. An unwelcome addition to their own domestic issues, but always a circular outcome, as they are inextricably linked to the US by their Bretton Woods II relationship. By devaluing and thus de-stabilising the 'nominal' anchor for Asian exchange rates, they will crush the growth engine of the developed countries on whose consumption they so rely on.



Since 2009, we have forecast and documented the unwinding of the Bretton Woods II currency system. Financialisation of our economies and markets, which escalated post-2008 at the instigation of governments and central bankers, is going to go into full reverse for all asset classes. Economies and markets are so entwined that a drop in asset classes will lead the world back into recession. In 2013, we believed the odds had tilted firmly towards increasing debt deflation at the hands of China. Large current account deficits had led to unsustainable debt creation, and as a consequence the trade deficit countries were the first to experience a severe financial crisis. However, on the other side of the equation, the surplus countries were now experiencing their reaction to the crisis.



In November 2013, we wrote: "The deleveraging process which began in 2008 has been a slow burner but is likely now in full swing. The deflationary risks are very high. China is the driver. All eyes on China."



We conceive that this slow-burner of deleveraging, which has occurred since the 2008 crisis, is potentially about to engulf all asset prices. We are beginning to think the unthinkable – that just maybe asset prices will back up 20 to 30% and fast and that through the autumn we could experience even greater price depreciation.



Cont.... 

Thursday, 27 August 2015

How the Iran deal will pass — and why it should

How the Iran deal will pass — and why it should



Fred Kaplan writes: It’s looking more and more like Benjamin Netanyahu committed a strategic blunder in so ferociously opposing the Iran nuclear deal and in rallying his American allies to spend all their resources on a campaign to kill the deal in Congress.
If current trends hold, the Israeli prime minister and his stateside lobbyists — mainly AIPAC — are set to lose this fight. It’s politically risky for Israel’s head of state to go up against the president of his only big ally and benefactor; it’s catastrophic to do so and come away with nothing. Similarly, it’s a huge defeat for AIPAC, whose power derives from an image of invincibility. American politicians and donors might get the idea that the group isn’t so invincible after all, that they can defy its wishes, now and then, without great risk.
It would have been better for Netanyahu — and for Israel — had he maybe grumbled about the Iran deal but not opposed it outright, let alone so brazenly. He could have pried many more favors from Obama in exchange for his scowl-faced neutrality. Not that Obama, or any other American president, will cut Israel off; but relations will remain more strained, and requests for other favors (for more or bigger weapons, or for certain votes in international forums) will be scrutinized more warily, than they would have been. [Continue reading…]

Pakistan Could Soon Have World's Third Largest Nuclear Arsenal | The Daily Sheeple

Pakistan Could Soon Have World's Third Largest Nuclear Arsenal | The Daily Sheeple



Two American think tanks have recently come to the conclusion that Pakistan may be increasing its production of nuclear weapons. According to the Stimson Center and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (whose members are known to attend Bilderberg from time to time) Pakistan may be building as many as 20 nuclear warheads per year. At that rate, their arsenal could surpass France’s and China’s within 10 years (unless of course China has more nukes than they’re letting on).



They largely base this assertion on the fact that Pakistan has a massive supply of enriched uranium, and is increasing its production of plutonium. Countries like India also have a huge stockpile of fissile materials, but most of their supply is being used for power production. Pakistan only has 3 nuclear plants in operation, while India has 7. Other Pakistani analysts however, believe that the report is “overblown” but admit that Pakistan is still interested in expanding its nuclear capabilities to some degree. One nuclear expert from the University of Islamabad asserted that they could build 40-50 nukes in the coming years.



Given the elitist credentials of the think tanks that produced the report, their findings may well be overblown. However, the mountains of Pakistan are still a powder keg of potential conflict. The province of Kashmir is hotly contested by Pakistan, India, and China, all of which have nuclear weapons; and India has fought multiple wars with both countries over the past 50 years. A new arms race in region is certainly within the realm possibility.

RESOURCE CRISIS: Rossi's E-cat: the slow death of a meme

RESOURCE CRISIS: Rossi's E-cat: the slow death of a meme: Results of a search using Google "Trends." The E-Cat is dead, but it keeps bouncing; a little.  News about the E-Cat, the...

Where is Neo When We Need Him -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

Where is Neo When We Need Him -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org



Paul Craig Roberts
In The Matrix in which Americans live, nothing is ever their fault. For example, the current decline in the US stock market is not because years of excessive liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve have created a bubble so overblown that a mere six stocks, some of which have no earnings commiserate with their price, accounted for more than all of the gain in market capitalization in the S&P 500 prior to the current disruption.
In our Matrix existence, the stock market decline is not due to corporations using their profits, and even taking out loans, to repurchase their shares, thus creating an artificial demand for their equity shares.
The decline is not due to the latest monthly reporting of durable goods orders falling on a year-to-year basis for the sixth consecutive month.
The stock market decline is not due to a weak economy in which after a decade of alleged economic recovery, new and existing home sales are still down by 63% and 23% from the peak in July 2005.
The stock market decline is not due to the collapse in real median family income and, thereby, consumer demand, resulting from two decades of offshoring middle class jobs and partially replacing them with minimum wage part-time Walmart jobs without benefits that do not provide sufficient income to form a household.

No Kidding? « The Burning Platform

No Kidding? « The Burning Platform



Guest Post by Karl Denninger
As I’ve discussed at length, there are many catalysts in play in the market’s turn, from fears about China to corporate earnings and commodity prices. But at the core, much of this plunge is about a loss of faith in cheap money stimulus. It’s as simple as that.
Loss of faith?
The problem isn’t simply that “central banks will rescue us.”  It’s that the world economic system has become addicted to a 30 year trend of fiscal irresponsibility that long ago crossed the line into abject fraud, and utterly nobody has gone to prison for it.
Specifically, the “I can afford $10,000 in interest, so how much can I borrow?” paradigm has become embedded not only among business but more importantly among governments of all stripes as well.
When the rate of interest is 10% the answer is $100,000, of course.