Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

The Secular Stagnation as an Immanent Feature of Post-2008 Neoliberalism

Image courtesy of Koren Shadmi (What’s Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy - The New York Times, Oct 14, 2016)
News Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Recommended Links GDP as a false measure of a country economic output Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as antidote to Neoliberalism Chronic Unemployment Redistribution of wealth up as the essence of neoliberalism
Forthcoming slow motion collapse of global neoliberal empire led by the USA Anti-globalization movement Why Peak Oil Threatens the International Monetary System Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers Economics of Peak Energy Upward Redistribution of Wealth
Identity politics as diversion of attention from social inequality Neoliberalism war on labor The Great Transformation Eroding Western living standards Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers Greece debt enslavement Ukraine debt enslavement
Neoliberal rationality Neoliberal "New Class" as variant of Soviet Nomenklatura The fiasco of suburbia Quite coup Casino Capitalism Lawrence Summers Oil glut fallacy
Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks: The efficient markets hypothesis Austerity Financial Sector Induced Systemic Instability of Economy Energy Geopolitics Corruption of Regulators MSM propagated myth about Saudis defending market share Great condensate con
Russia oil production Helicopter Ben: Arsonist Turned into Firefighter Financial Quotes Casino Capitalism Dictionary Financial Humor Humor Etc

Introduction

Secular stagnation is a term proposed by Keynesian economist Alvin Hansen back in the 1930s to explain the USA dismal economic performance during this period. The period in which sluggish growth and output, and employment levels well below potential, coincide with a problematically low (even negative) real interest rates even in the face of the extraordinarily easy monetary policy. Later a similar phenomenon occurred in Japan. that's why it is often called called Japanification of the economy.  Secular stagnation returned to the USA in full force after the financial crisis of 2008 (so called The Long Recession), so this is the second time the USA society experience the same socio-economic phenomenon. 

Formally it can be defined as any stagnation that lasts substantially longer then the business cycle (and dominates the business cycle induced variations of economic activities), the suppression of economic performance for a long (aka secular) period. It also can be viewed as the crisis of demand, when demand became systemically weak (which under neoliberalism is ensured by redistribution of wealth up).

The global stagnation we are experiencing is the logical result of the dominance of neoliberalism and a sign of its crisis an a ideology. It is somewhat similar to the crisis of Bolshevik's ideology in the USSR in 60th when everybody realized that the existing society cannot fulfill the key promise of higher living standards. And that over centralization of economic life naturally leads to stagnation.  The analogy does not ends here, but this point is the most important.

Neoliberalism replaced over-centralization (with iron fist one party rule) with over-financialization (with iron fist rule of financial oligarchy), with generally the same result as for the economy ( In other words neoliberalism like bolshevism is equal to economic stagnation; extremes meet).  The end of cheap oil did not help iether. In a sense neoliberalism might be viewed as the elite reaction to the end of cheap oil, when it became clear that there are not enough cookies for everyone.

This growth in the financial sector's profits has not been an accident; it is the result of  engineered shift in the elite thinking, which changed government policies. The central question of politics is, in my view, "Who has a right to live and who does not".  In the answer to this question, neoliberal subscribes to Social Darwinism: ordinary citizens should be given much less rather than more social protection. Such  policies would have been impossible in 50th and 60th (A Short History of Neo-liberalism)

In 1945 or 1950, if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage at or sent off to the insane asylum. At least in the Western countries, at that time, everyone was a Keynesian, a social democrat or a social-Christian democrat or some shade of Marxist.

The idea that the market should be allowed to make major social and political decisions; the idea that the State should voluntarily reduce its role in the economy, or that corporations should be given total freedom, that trade unions should be curbed and citizens given much less rather than more social protection--such ideas were utterly foreign to the spirit of the time. Even if someone actually agreed with these ideas, he or she would have hesitated to take such a position in public and would have had a hard time finding an audience.

And this change in government polices was achieved in classic Bolsheviks coup d'état way, when yoiu first create the Party of "professional neoliberal revolutionaries". Who then push for this change and "occupy" strategic places like economics departments at the universities, privately funded think tanks, MSM, and then subvert one or both major parties.  The crisis of "New Deal Capitalism" helped, but without network of think tanks and rich donors, the triumph of neoliberalism in the USA would have been impossible:

...one explanation for this triumph of neo-liberalism and the economic, political, social and ecological disasters that go with it is that neo-liberals have bought and paid for their own vicious and regressive "Great Transformation". They have understood, as progressives have not, that ideas have consequences. Starting from a tiny embryo at the University of Chicago with the philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek and his students like Milton Friedman at its nucleus, the neo-liberals and their funders have created a huge international network of foundations, institutes, research centers, publications, scholars, writers and public relations hacks to develop, package and push their ideas and doctrine relentlessly.

Most economists are acutely aware of the increasing role in economic life of financial markets, institutions and operations and the pursuit of prifits via excotic instruments such as derivatives (all this constituted  financialization). This dominant feature of neoliberalism has huge the re-distributional implications, huge effects on the US economy, international dimensions and monetary system, depth and longevity of financial crises and unapt policy responses to them.

They have built this highly efficient ideological cadre because they understand what the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci was talking about when he developed the concept of cultural hegemony. If you can occupy peoples' heads, their hearts and their hands will follow.

I do not have time to give you details here, but believe me, the ideological and promotional work of the right has been absolutely brilliant. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, but the result has been worth every penny to them because they have made neo-liberalism seem as if it were the natural and normal condition of humankind. No matter how many disasters of all kinds the neo-liberal system has visibly created, no matter what financial crises it may engender, no matter how many losers and outcasts it may create, it is still made to seem inevitable, like an act of God, the only possible economic and social order available to us.  

Neoliberalism naturally leads to secular stagnation due to redistribution of wealth up. which undermines purchasing power of the 99%, or more correctly 99.9 of the population. In the USA this topic became hotly debated theme in establishment circles after Summers speech in 2013.  Unfortunately it was suppressed in Presidential campaign of 2016. Please note that Sanders speaks about Wall Street shenanigans, but not about ideology of neoliberalism.  No candidates tried to address this problem of "self-colonization" of the USA, which is probably crucial to "making America great again" instead of continued slide into what is called "banana republic" coined by American writer O. Henry (William Sydney Porter 1862–1910). Here is how Wikipedia described the term:

Banana republic or banana state is a pejorative political science term for politically unstable countries in Latin America whose economies are largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites.[1] This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.[2]

... ... ...

In economics, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by a collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, in which the profit derived from the private exploitation of public lands is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are a public responsibility.

This topic is of great importance to the US elite because the USA is the citadel of  neoliberalism. It also suggest that the natural way neoliberal economic system based on increasing of the level of inequality (redistribution of wealth up) should behave: after the initial economic boom (like in case of steroids use) caused by  financialization of economy (as well as dissolution of the USSR), helped by off-shoring of manufacturing, the destructive effects of this temporary boost come into foreground. Redistribution of wealth up increases inequality which after a certain delay starts to undercuts domestic demand. It also tilts the demand more toward conspicuous consumption (note the boom of luxury cars sales in the USA).  

But after  inequality reaches certain critical threshold  the economy faces extended period of low growth reflecting persistently weak private demand (purchasing power of lower 90% of population).  People who mostly have low level service economy jobs (aka MC-jobs) can't buy that much.  Earlier giants of American capitalism like Ford understood that, but Wall Street sharks do not and does not want.  They operate under principle "Après nous le déluge" ("After us, the deluge").

An economic cycle enters recession when total spending falls below expected by producers and they realize that production level is too high relative to demand. What we have under neoliberalism is Marx's crisis of overproduction on a new level. At this level it is intrinsically connected with the parasitic nature of complete financialization of the economy. The focus on monetary policy and the failure to enact fiscal policy options is the key structural defect of neoliberalism ideology and can't be changed unless neoliberal ideology is abandoned. Which probably will not happen unless another huge crisis hits the USA. That might not happen soon.  Bolshevism lasted more then 70 years. If we assume that the "age of neoliberalism" started at 1973 with Pinochet coup d'état in Chile, neoliberalism as a social system is just 43 years old (as of 2016). It still has some "time to live"(TTL) in zombies state due to the principle first formulated by Margaret Thatcher as TINA ("There Is No Alternative") -- the main competitor, bolshevism, was discredited by the collapse of the USSR and China leadership adoption of neoliberalism. While Soviet leadership simply abandoned the sinking ship and became Nouveau riche in a neoliberal society that followed, Chinese elite managed to preserved at least outer framework of the Marxist state and the political control of the Communist party (not clear for how long). But there was a neoliberal transformation of Chinese economy, initiated, paradoxically, by the Chinese Communist Party.

Currently, no other ideology, including old "New Deal" ideology can  compete with neoliberal ideology, although things started to change with Sanders campaign in the USA on  the left and Trump campaign on the right. Most of what we see as a negative reaction to neoliberalism in Europe generally falls into the domain of cultural nationalism.    

The 2008 financial crisis, while discrediting neoliberalism as an ideology (in the same way as WWII discredited Bolshevism), was clearly not enough for the abandonment of this ideology. Actually neoliberalism proved to be remarkably resilient after this crisis. Some researchers claim that it entered "zombie state" and became more bloodthirsty and ruthless.

There is also religious overtones of neoliberalism which increase its longevity (similar to Trotskyism, and neoliberalism can be called "Trotskyism for rich"). So, from a small, unpopular sect with virtually no influence, neo-liberalism has become the major world religion with its dogmatic doctrine, its priesthood, its law-giving institutions and perhaps most important of all, its hell for heathen and sinners who dare to contest the revealed truth.  Like in most cults adherents became more fanatical believers after the prophecy did not materialized. The USA elite tried partially alleviate this problem by resorting to military Keynesianism as a supplementary strategy. But while military budget was raised to unprecedented levels, it can't reverse the tendency. Persistent high output gap is now a feature of the US economy, not a transitory state.

But there is another factor in play here: combination of peak (aka "plato" ;-) oil and established correlation of  the speed of economic growth and prices on fossil fuels and first of all on oil. Oil provides more than a third of the energy we use on the planet every day, more than any other energy source (How High Oil Prices Will Permanently Cap Economic Growth - Bloomberg). It is dominant fuel for transport and in this role it is very difficult to replace. 

That means that a substantial increase of price of oil acts as a fundamental limiting factor for economic growth. And "end of cheap oil" simply means that any increase of supply of oil to support growing population on the planet and economic growth now requires higher prices. Which naturally undermine economic growth, unless massive injection of currency are instituted. that probably was the factor that prevented slide of the US economy into the recession in 2009-2012.  Such a Catch-22.

Growth dampening potential of over $100-a-barrel oil is now a well established factor. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. Drop of oil price to below $50 as happened in late 2014 and first half of 2015 did not increase growth rate of the USA economy. It might simply prevented it from sliding it into another phase of Great Recession. Moreover when  economies activity drops, less oil is needed.  Enter permanent stagnation.

Also there is not much oil left that can be profitably extracted at prices below $80. So the current oil price slump is a temporary phenomenon, whether it was engineered, or is a mixture of factors including temporary overcapacity . Sooner or later oil prices should return to level "above $80", as only at this level of oil price capital expenditures in new production make sense. That des not mean that oil prices can't be suppressed for another year or even two, but as Herbert Stein aptly noted   "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,"

 The alien spaceship landing

Imagine the alien spaceship landed somewhere in the world. There would be denial, disbelief, fear, and great uncertainty for the future. World leaders would struggle to make sense of the events. The landing would change everything.

The secular stagnation (aka "end of permanent growth") is a very similar event.  This also is the event that has potential to change everything, but it is much more prolonged in time and due to this less visible ("boiling frog effect").  Also this is not a single event, but a long sequence of related events that probably might last several decades (as Japan had shown) or even centuries. The current "Great Recession" might be just a prolog to those events. It is clearly incompatible with capitalism as a mode of production, although capitalism as a social system demonstrated over the years tremendous adaptability and it is too early to write it down completely.  Also no clear alternatives exists. 

A very slow recovery and the secular stagnation is characteristic of economies suffering from a balance-sheet recession (aka crisis of overproduction), as forcefully argued by Nomura’s Richard Koo and other economists. The key point is that private investment is down, not because of “policy uncertainty” or “increased regulation”, but because business-sector expectations about future profitability have become dramatically depressed — and rationally so — in a context characterized by heavy indebtedness (of both households and corporations). As businesses see the demand falls they scale down production which creates negative feedback look and depresses demand further. 

The key point is that private investment is down, not because of “policy uncertainty” or “increased regulation”, but because business-sector expectations about future profitability have become dramatically depressed — and rationally so — in a context characterized by heavy indebtedness (of both households and corporations). As businesses see the demand falls they scale down production which creates negative feedback look and depresses demand further.   

Five  hypothesis about the roots of secular stagnation

There are at least five different hypothesis about the roots of secular stagnation:

Summers’s remarks and articles were followed by an explosion of debate concerning “secular stagnation”—a term commonly associated with Alvin Hansen’s work from the 1930s to ’50s, and frequently employed in Monthly Review to explain developments in the advanced economies from the 1970s to the early 2000s.2 Secular stagnation can be defined as the tendency to long-term (or secular) stagnation in the private accumulation process of the capitalist economy, manifested in rising unemployment and excess capacity and a slowdown in overall economic growth. It is often referred to simply as “stagnation.” There are numerous theories of secular stagnation but most mainstream theories hearken back to Hansen, who was Keynes’s leading early follower in the United States, and who derived the idea from various suggestions in Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936).

Responses to Summers have been all over the map, reflecting both the fact that the capitalist economy has been slowing down, and the role in denying it by many of those seeking to legitimate the system. Stanford economist John B. Taylor contributed a stalwart denial of secular stagnation in the Wall Street Journal. In contrast, Paul Krugman, who is closely aligned with Summers, endorsed secular stagnation on several occasions in the New York Times. Other notable economists such as Brad DeLong and Michael Spence soon weighed in with their own views.3

Three prominent economists have new books directly addressing the phenomena of secular stagnation.4 It has now been formally modelled by Brown University economists Gauti Eggertsson and Neil Mehrotra, while Thomas Piketty’s high-profile book bases its theoretical argument and policy recommendations on stagnation tendencies of capitalism. This explosion of interest in the Summers/Krugman version of stagnation has also resulted in a collection of articles and debate, edited by Coen Teulings and Richard Baldwin, entitled Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures.5

Seven years after “The Great Financial Crisis” of 2007–2008, the recovery remains sluggish. It can be argued that the length and depth of the Great Financial Crisis is a rather ordinary cyclical crisis. However, the monetary and fiscal measures to combat it were extraordinary. This has resulted in a widespread sense that there will not be a return to “normal.” Summers/Krugman’s resurrection within the mainstream of Hansen’s concept of secular stagnation is an attempt to explain how extraordinary policy measures following the 2007–2008 crisis merely led to the stabilization of a lethargic, if not comatose, economy.

But what do these economists mean by secular stagnation? If stagnation is a reality, does their conception of it make current policy tools obsolete? And what is the relationship between the Summers/Krugman notion of secular stagnation and the monopoly-finance capital theory?

... ... ...

In “secular stagnation,” the term “secular” is intended to differentiate between the normal business cycle and long-term, chronic stagnation. A long-term slowdown in the economy over decades can be seen as superimposed on the regular business cycle, reflecting the trend rather than the cycle.

In the general language of economics, secular stagnation, or simply stagnation, thus implies that the long-run potential economic growth has fallen, constituting the first pillar of MISS. This has been most forcefully argued for by Robert Gordon, as well as Garry Kasparov and Peter Thiel.6 Their argument is that the cumulative growth effect of current (and future) technological changes will be far weaker than in the past. Moreover, demographic changes place limits on the development of “human capital.” The focus is on technology, which orthodox economics generally sees as a factor external to the economy and on the supply-side (i.e., in relation to cost). Gordon’s position is thus different than that of moderate Keynesians like Summers and Krugman, who focus on demand-side contradictions of the system.

In Gordon’s supply-side, technocratic view, there are forces at work that will limit the growth in productive input and the efficiency of these inputs. This pillar of MISS emphasizes that it is constraints on the aggregate supply-side of the economy that have diminished absolutely the long-run potential growth.

The second pillar of MISS, also a supply-side view, goes back at least to Joseph Schumpeter. To explain the massive slump of 1937, Schumpeter maintained there had emerged a growing anti-business climate. Moreover, he contended that the rise of the modern corporation had displaced the role of the entrepreneur; the anti-business spirit had a repressive effect on entrepreneurs’ confidence and optimism.7 Today, this second pillar of MISS has been resurrected suggestively by John B. Taylor, who argues the poor recovery is best “explained by policy uncertainty” and “increased regulation” that is unfavorable to business. Likewise, Baker, Bloom, and Davis have forcefully argued that political uncertainty can hold back private investment and economic growth.8

Summers and Krugman, as Keynesians, emphasize a third MISS pillar, derived from Keynes’s famous liquidity trap theory, which contends that the “full-employment real interest rate” has declined in recent years. Indeed, both Summers and Krugman demonstrate that real interest rates have declined over recent decades, therefore moving from an exogenous explanation (as in pillars one and two) to a more endogenous explanation of secular stagnation.9 The ultimate problem here is lack of investment demand, such that, in order for net investment to occur at all, interest rates have to be driven to near zero or below. Their strong argument is that there are now times when negative real interest rates are needed to equate saving and investment with full employment.

However, “interest rates are not fully flexible in modern economies”—in other words, market-determined interest rate adjustments chronically fail to achieve full employment. Summers contends there are financial forces that prohibit the real interest rate from becoming negative; hence, full employment cannot be realized.10

Some theorists contend that there has been demographic structural shifts increasing the supply of saving, thus decreasing interest rates. These shifts include an increase in life expectancy, a decrease in retirement age, and a decline in the growth rate of population.

Others, including Summers, point out that stagnation in capital formation (or accumulation) can be attributed to a decrease in the demand for loanable funds for investment. One mainstream explanation offered for this is that today’s new technologies and companies, such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook, require far less capital investment. Another hypothesis is that there has been an important decrease in the demand for loanable funds, although they argue this is due to a preference for safe assets. These factors can function together to keep the real interest rate very low. The policy implication of secular low interest rates is that monetary policy is more difficult to implement effectually; during a recession, it is weakened and can even become ineffectual.

Edward Glaeser, focusing on “secular joblessness,” places severe doubt on the first pillar of MISS, but then makes a very important additional argument. Glaeser rejects the notion that there has been a slowdown in technological innovation; innovation is simply “unrelenting.” Likewise, he is far less concerned with secular low real interest rates, which may be far more cyclical. “Therefore,” contends Glaeser, “stagnation is likely to be temporary.”

Nonetheless, Glaeser underscores secular joblessness, and thus the dysfunction of U.S. labor markets constitutes a fourth pillar of MISS: “The dysfunction in the labour market is real and serious, and seems unlikely to be solved by any obvious economic trend.” Somehow, then, the problem is due to a misfit of skills or “human capital” on the side of workers, who thus need retraining. “The massive secular trend in joblessness is a terrible social problem for the US, and one that the country must try to address” with targeted policy.11 Glaeser’s argument for the dysfunction of U.S. labor markets is based on recession-generated shocks to employment, specifically of less-skilled U.S. workers. After 1970, when workers lost their job, the damage to human capital became permanent. In short, when human capital depreciates due to unemployment, overall abilities and “talent” are “lost” permanently. This may be because the skills required in today’s economy need to be constantly practiced to be retained. Thus, there is a ratchet-like effect in joblessness caused by recessions, whereby recession-linked joblessness is not fully reversed during recoveries—and all this is related to skills (the human capital of the workers), and not to capital itself. According to Glaeser, the ratchet-like effect of recession-linked joblessness is further exacerbated by the U.S. social-safety net, which has “made joblessness less painful and increased the incentives to stay out of work.”12

Glaeser contends that, if his secular joblessness argument is correct, the macroeconomic fiscal interventions argued for by Summers and Krugman are off-base.13 Instead, the safety net should be redesigned in order to encourage rather than discourage people from working. Additionally, incentives to work need to be radically improved through targeted investments in education and workforce training.14 Such views within the mainstream debate, emphasizing exogenous factors, are generally promoted by freshwater (conservative) rather than saltwater (liberal) economists. Thus, they tend to emphasize supply-side or cost factors.

The fifth pillar of MISS contends that output and productivity growth are stagnant due to a failure to invest in infrastructure, education, and training. Nearly all versions of MISS subscribe to some version of this, although there are both conservative and liberal variations. Barry Eichengreen underscores this pillar and condemns recent U.S. fiscal developments that have “cut to the bone” federal government spending devoted to infrastructure, education, and training.

The fifth pillar of MISS necessarily reflects an imbalance between public and private investment spending. Many theorists maintain that the imbalance between public and private investment spending, hence secular stagnation, “is not inevitable.” For example, Eichengreen contends if “the US experiences secular stagnation, the condition will be self-inflicted. It will reflect the country’s failure to address its infrastructure, education and training needs. It will reflect its failure to…support aggregate demand in an effort to bring the long-term unemployed back into the labour market.”15

The sixth pillar of MISS argues that the “debt overhang” from the overleveraging of financial firms and households, as well as private and public indebtedness, are a serious drag on the economy. This position has been argued for most forcefully by several colleagues of Summers at Harvard, most notably Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.16 Atif Mian and Amir Sufi also argue that household indebtedness was the primary culprit causing the economic collapse of 2007–2008. Their policy recommendation is that the risk to mortgage borrowers must be reduced to avoid future calamities.17

As noted, the defenders of MISS do not necessarily support a compatibility between the above six pillars: those favored by conservatives are supply-side and exogenous in emphasis, while liberals tend towards demand-side and endogenous ones. Instead, most often these pillars are developed as competing theories to explain the warrant of some aspect of secular stagnation, and/or to defend particular policy positions while criticizing alternative policy positions. However, the concern here is not whether there is the possibility for a synthesis of mainstream views. Rather, the emphasis is on how partial and separate such explanations are, both individually and in combination.

Neoliberal economy actually needs bubbles to function

As Krugman said "We now know that the economic expansion of 2003-2007 was driven by a bubble. You can say the same about the latter part of the 90s expansion; and you can in fact say the same about the later years of the Reagan expansion, which was driven at that point by runaway thrift institutions and a large bubble in commercial real estate." In other words blowing bubbles is the fundamental way neoliberal economy functions, not an anomaly.

As much as the USA population is accustomed to hypocrisy of the ruling elite and is brainwashed by MSM, this news, delivered to them personally by the crisis of 2008 was too much for them not question the fundamentals (A Primer on Neoliberalism):

Of course, the irony that those same institutions would now themselves agree that those “anti-capitalist” regulations are required is of course barely noted. Such options now being considered are not anti-capitalist. However, they could be described as more regulatory or managed rather than completely free or laissez faire capitalism, which critics of regulation have often preferred.

But a regulatory capitalist economy is very different to a state-based command economy, the style of which the Soviet Union was known for. The points is that there are various forms of capitalism, not just the black-and-white capitalism and communism. And at the same time, the most extreme forms of capitalism can also lead to the bigger bubbles and the bigger busts.

In that context, the financial crisis, as severe as it was, led to key architects of the system admitting to flaws in key aspects of the ideology.

At the end of 2008, Alan Greenspan was summoned to the U.S. Congress to testify about the financial crisis. His tenure at the Federal Reserve had been long and lauded, and Congress wanted to know what had gone wrong. Henry Waxman questioned him:

[Greenspan’s flaw] warped his view about how the world was organized, about the sociology of the market. And Greenspan is not alone. Larry Summers, the president’s senior economic advisor, has had to come to terms with a similar error—his view that the market was inherently self-stabilizing has been “dealt a fatal blow.” Hank Paulson, Bush’s treasury secretary, has shrugged his shoulders with similar resignation. Even Jim Cramer from CNBC’s Mad Money admitted defeat: “The only guy who really called this right was Karl Marx.” One after the other, the celebrants of the free market are finding themselves, to use the language of the market, corrected.

Raj Patel, Flaw PDF formatted document, The Value of Nothing, (Picador, 2010), pp.4, 6-7

Now for the second time in history, the challenge is to save capitalism from itself

Now for the second time in history, the challenge is to save capitalism from itself: to recognize the great strengths of open, competitive markets while rejecting the extreme capitalism and unrestrained greed that have perverted so much of the global financial system in recent times. It took such a statesman as Franklin Delano Roosevelt to rebuild American capitalism after the Great Depression. New Deal policies allowed to rebuild postwar domestic demand, to engineer the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and to set in place the Bretton Woods system to govern international economic engagement.

With the abolishment of those policies blowing of one bubble after another, each followed by a financial crisis  became standard chain of the events. Since 1973 we already have a half-dozen bubbles following by economic crisis. It started with  Savings and loan crisis which partially was caused by the deregulation of S&Ls in 1980, by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 31, 1980, an important step is a series that eliminated regulations initially designed to prevent lending excesses and minimize failures.

To hide this unpleasant fact neoliberals resort to so called the Great Neoliberal Lie:

What is neoliberalism

The fallacious and utterly misleading argument that the global economic crisis (credit crunch) was caused by excessive state spending, rather than by the reckless gambling of the deregulated, neoliberalized financial sector.

Just as with other pseudo-scientific theories and fundamentalist ideologies, the excuse that "we just weren't fundamentalist enough last time" is always there. The neoliberal pushers of the establishment know that pure free-market economies are as much of an absurd fairytale as 100% pure communist economies, however they keep pushing for further privatizations, tax cuts for the rich, wage repression for the ordinary, and reckless financial sector deregulations precisely because they are the direct beneficiaries of these policies. Take the constantly widening wealth gap in the UK throughout three decades of neoliberal policy. The minority of beneficiaries from this ever widening wealth gap are the business classes, financial sector workers, the mainstream media elite and the political classes. It is no wonder at all that these people think neoliberalism is a successful ideology. Within their bubbles of wealth and privilege it has been. To everyone else it has been an absolute disaster.

Returning to a point I raised earlier in the article; one of the main problems with the concept of "neoliberalism" is the nebulousness of the definition. It is like a form of libertarianism, however it completely neglects the fundamental libertarian idea of non-aggression. In fact, it is so closely related to that other (highly aggressive) US born political ideology of Neo-Conservatism that many people get the two concepts muddled up. A true libertarian would never approve of vast taxpayer funded military budgets, the waging of imperialist wars of aggression nor the wanton destruction of the environment in pursuit of profit.

Another concept that is closely related to neoliberalism is the ideology of minarchism (small stateism), however the neoliberal brigade seem perfectly happy to ignore the small-state ideology when it suits their personal interests. Take the vast banker bailouts (the biggest state subsidies in human history) that were needed to save the neoliberalised global financial sector from the consequences of their own reckless gambling, the exponential growth of the parasitic corporate outsourcing sector (corporations that make virtually 100% of their turnover from the state) and the ludicrous housing subsidies (such as "Help to Buy and Housing Benefits) that have fueled the reinflation of yet another property Ponzi bubble.

The Godfather of neoliberalism was Milton Friedman. He made the case that illegal drugs should be legalised in order to create a free-market drug trade, which is one of the very few things I agreed with him about. However this is politically inconvenient (because the illegal drug market is a vital source of financial sector liquidity) so unlike so many of his neoliberal ideas that have consistently failed, yet remain incredibly popular with the wealthy elite, Friedman's libertarian drug legalisation proposals have never even been tried out.

The fact that neoliberals are so often prepared to ignore the fundamental principles of libertarianism (the non-aggression principle, drug legalisation, individual freedoms, the right to peaceful protest ...) and abuse the fundamental principles of small state minarchism (vast taxpayer funded bailouts for their financial sector friends, £billions in taxpayer funded outsourcing contracts, alcohol price fixing schemes) demonstrate that neoliberalism is actually more like Ayn Rand's barmy (greed is the only virtue, all other "virtues" are aberrations) pseudo-philosophical ideology of objectivism  than a set of formal economic theories.

The result of neoliberal economic theories has been proven time and again. Countries that embrace the neoliberal pseudo-economic ideology end up with "crony capitalism", where the poor and ordinary suffer "austerity", wage repression, revocation of labor rights and the right to protest, whilst a tiny cabal of corporate interests and establishment insiders enrich themselves via anti-competitive practices, outright criminality and corruption and vast socialism-for-the-rich schemes.

Neoliberal fanatics in powerful positions have demonstrated time and again that they will willingly ditch their right-wing libertarian and minarchist "principles" if those principles happen to conflict with their own personal self-interest. Neoliberalism is less of a formal set of economic theories than an error strewn obfuscation narrative to promote the economic interests, and  justify the personal greed of the wealthy, self-serving establishment elite.
 

Bubbles as the neoliberal tool for wealth redistribution

The 1930s, a well researched period of balance-sheet recession, provides some interesting perspective despite large historical distance.  Roosevelt was no socialist, but his New Deal did frighten many businesses, especially large business which BTW attempted a coupe to remove him from is position. Fortunately for Roosevelt CIA did not exist yet.  And New Deal  government projects has been much bigger and bolder, then anything Obama ever tried, because Obama administration was constrained in its action by dominant neoliberal thinking. Like regulatory capture, which is an immanent feature of neoliberalism,  there is also less known and less visible ideological capture of the government. Which also makes neoliberalism more similar to bolshevism as this ideological capture and related inability of the USSR elite to modernize the economy on some "mixed" principles, when over-centralization stopped working. It, along with the collapse of the ideology,  probably was one of the main reasons of the collapse of the USSR.  Chinese leadership managed to do this and introduced "new economic policies"(NEP). 

Uner New deal regime when public investment and hence aggregate demand expanded, the economy started to grow anyway. Roosevelt did have a vision and he did convince the electorate about the way to go. Cheap optimism of Reagan, or even audacity of hope "Obama style" were not enough. After all, as Francis Bacon may remind us: “Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper” (Apophthegms, 1624).

Obama/Bernanke-style attempts to stimulate growth by pure injection of cheap money in this environment not only inflate new bubbles instead of old one, with which the fighting starts. They also lead to massive redistribution of wealth that makes the problem even worse:

Paul Krugman tells us that Larry Summers joined the camp concerned about secular stagnation in his I.M.F. talk last week, something that I had not picked up from prior coverage of the session. This is good news, but I would qualify a few of the points that Krugman makes in his elaboration of Summers' remarks.

First, while the economy may presently need asset bubbles to maintain full employment (a point I made in Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy), it doesn't follow that we should not be concerned about asset bubbles. The problem with bubbles is that their inflation and inevitable deflation lead to massive redistribution of wealth.

Larry Summers was the first establishment economist who conceded that this is the fact (Wikipedia)

... Larry Summers presented his view during November 2013 that secular (long-term) stagnation may be a reason that U.S. growth is insufficient to reach full employment: "Suppose then that the short term real interest rate that was consistent with full employment [i.e., the "natural rate"] had fallen to negative two or negative three percent. Even with artificial stimulus to demand you wouldn't see any excess demand. Even with a resumption in normal credit conditions you would have a lot of difficulty getting back to full employment."[13][14]

Robert J. Gordon wrote in August 2012:

"Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9 percent annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative 'exercise in subtraction' suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for an extended period of decades".[15]

One hypothesis is that high levels of productivity greater than the economic growth rate are creating economic slack, in which fewer workers are required to meet the demand for goods and services. Firms have less incentive to invest and instead prefer to hold cash. Journalist Marco Nappolini wrote in November 2013:

 "If the expected return on investment over the short term is presumed to be lower than the cost of holding cash then even pushing interest rates to zero will have little effect. That is, if you cannot push real interest rates below the so-called short run natural rate [i.e., the rate of interest required to achieve the growth rate necessary to achieve full employment] you will struggle to bring forward future consumption, blunting the short run effectiveness of monetary policy...Moreover, if you fail to bring it below the long run natural rate there is a strong disincentive to increase fixed capital investment and a consequent preference to hold cash or cash-like instruments in an attempt to mitigate risk. This could cause longer-term hysteresis effects and reduce an economy's potential output."[13] 

Cost of energy as a defining new factor

The cost of energy is probably another reason of secular stagnation along with excessive public and private debt. Rising cost of energy is deadly for capitalism.  Here are some comments that might clarify the situation:

raskolnikov:

This is the biggest crybaby column Krugman's ever written. He should be ashamed of himself and return his Nobel prize immediately. Has he ever put down Keynes long enough to read a little Marx?  Here's Robert Brenner summing it up in 2009:

 What mainly accounts for the long-term weakening of the real economy is a deep, and lasting, decline of the rate of return on capital investment since the end of the 1960s.

The failure of the rate of profit to recover is all the more remarkable, in view of the huge drop-off in the growth of real wages over the period.

The main cause, though not the only cause, of the decline in the rate of profit has been a persistent tendency to overcapacity in global manufacturing industries."

 There's more, too. Instead of siding with crackpot Summers, Krugman should expand his research and be of some use to us all.

Kievite

I am not sure that it is correct to think about public debt as internal debt. It's all about energy.

That means that public debt is to a large extent foreign due to unalterable oil consumption (and related trade deficits). And that completely changes the situation unless you are the owner of the world reserve currency.

But even in the latter case (exorbitant privilege as Valéry Giscard d'Estaing called it ) you can expect attacks on the status of the currency as world reserve currency. The growth is still supported via militarization, forced opening of foreign markets (with military force, if necessary) and conversion of the state into national security state. But as Napoleon admitted "You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them"

One positive thing about high public (and to a large extent foreign owned) debt in the USA is that it undermines what Bacevich called "new American militarism" (http://www.amazon.com/The-New-American-Militarism-Americans/dp/0195173384). Bacevich argues that this is distinct political course adopted by the "defense intellectuals," the evangelicals, and the neocons. And they will never regret their failed efforts such as Iraq invasion.

From Amazon review:

=== Quote ===

Bacevich clearly links our present predicaments both at home and abroad to the ever greater need for natural resources, especially oil from the Persian Gulf. He demolishes all of the reasons for our bellicosity based on ideals and links it directly to our insatiable appetite for oil and economic expansion. Naturally, like thousands of writers before him, he points out the need for a national energy policy based on more effective use of resources and alternative means of production.

=== End of Quote ==

Heinberg's Five Axioms of Sustainability

As Heinberg explained fossil fuels, primarily oil, permeate every aspect of our modern culture - from agriculture to cities and a long-term perspective. In the age of almost 7 billion people demanding more and more of limited resources, the media, politicians and governments tend to only report short-term perspectives and ignore Heinberg's Five Axioms of Sustainability to the extent that these concepts are taboo to be spoken, discussed or thought (Heinberg, Richard (2007) Five Axioms of Sustainability):

1. (Tainter’s Axiom): Any society that continues to use critical resources unsustainably will collapse.

Exception: A society can avoid collapse by finding replacement resources.

Limit to the exception: In a finite world, the number of possible replacements is also finite.

...

2. (Bartlett’s Axiom): Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

...

3. To be sustainable, the use of renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is less than or equal to the rate of natural replenishment.

...

4. To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.

The rate of depletion is defined as the amount being extracted and used during a specified time interval (usually a year) as a percentage of the amount left to extract.

...

5. Sustainability requires that substances introduced into the environment from human activities be minimized and rendered harmless to biosphere functions.

In cases where pollution from the extraction and consumption of non-renewable resources that has proceeded at expanding rates for some time threatens the viability of ecosystems, reduction in the rates of extraction and consumption of those resources may need to occur at a rate greater than the rate of depletion. 

Archaeologist Joseph Tainter, in his classic study The Collapse of Complex Societies (1988), demonstrated that collapse is a frequent if not universal fate of complex societies and argued that collapse results from declining returns on efforts to support growing levels of societal complexity using energy harvested from the environment.  Jared Diamond’s popular book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005) similarly  makes the argument that collapse is the common destiny of societies that ignore resourse constraints. This axiom defines sustainability by the consequences of its absence—that is, collapse.

Historical periods of stagnation in the United States

Adapted from Wikipedia

Excluding the current, there were two period of stagnation in the USA history:

Construction of structures, residential, commercial and industrial, fell off dramatically during the depression, but housing was well on its way to recovering by the late 1930s.[17]

The depression years were the period of the highest total factor productivity growth in the United States, primarily to the building of roads and bridges, abandonment of unneeded railroad track and reduction in railroad employment, expansion of electric utilities and improvements wholesale and retail distribution.[17]

The war created pent up demand for many items as factories that once produced automobiles and other machinery converted to production of tanks, guns, military vehicles and supplies. Tires had been rationed due to shortages of natural rubber; however, the U.S. government built synthetic rubber plants. The U.S. government also built synthetic ammonia plants, aluminum smelters, aviation fuel refineries and aircraft engine factories during the war.[17] After the war commercial aviation, plastics and synthetic rubber would become major industries and synthetic ammonia was used for fertilizer. The end of armaments production free up hundreds of thousands of machine tools, which were made available for other industries. They were needed in the rapidly growing aircraft manufacturing industry.[18]

The memory of war created a need for preparedness in the United States. This resulted in constant spending for defense programs, creating what President Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex.

U.S. birth rates began to recover by the time of World War II, and turned into the baby boom of the postwar decades. A building boom commenced in the years following the war. Suburbs began a rapid expansion and automobile ownership increased.[17]

High-yielding crops and chemical fertilizers dramatically increased crop yields and greatly lowered the cost of food, giving consumers more discretionary income. Railroad locomotives switched from steam to diesel power, with a large increase in fuel efficiency. Most importantly, cheap food essentially eliminated malnutrition in countries like the United States and much of Europe.

Many trends that began before the war continued:

Researchers who contributed to understating secular stagnation

One of the first researchers who clearly attributed secular stagnation problem to neoliberalism was Alan Nasser, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy and Philosophy at The Evergreen State College. In his September 22, 2005 paper  ECONOMIC LAWS, STRUCTURAL TENDENCIES, SECULAR STAGNATION THEORY, AND THE FATE OF NEOLIBERALISM  he pointed out the key features of secular stagnation long before Summers started to understand the problem  and even befor the economic crash of 2008 ;-)

September 22, 2005 | alannasser.org

Alan Nasser Invited presentation, University of Lille,

"We have now grown used to the idea that most ordinary or natural growth processes (the growth of organisms, or popu- lations of organisms or, for example, of cities) is not merely limited, but self-limited, i.e. is slowed down or eventually brought to a standstill as a consequence of the act of growth itself. For one reason or another, but always for some reason, organisms cannot grow indefinitely, just as beyond a certain level of size or density a population defeats its own capacity for further growth."

Sir Peter Medawar, The Revolution of Hope

"A business firm grows and attains great strength, and afterwards perhaps stagnates and decays; and at the turning point there is a balancing or equilibrium of the forces of life and decay. And as we reach to the higher stages of our work, we shall need ever more and more to think of economic forces as those which make a young man grow in strength until he reaches his prime; after which he gradually becomes stiff and inactive, till at last he sinks to make room for other and more vigorous life."

Alfred Marshall, Principals of Economics (1890)

"Though Keynes's 'breakdown theory is quite different from Marx's, it has an important feature in common with the latter: in both theories, the breakdown is motivated by causes inherent to the working of the economic engine, not by the action of factors external to it."

Joseph Schumpeter, Ten Great Economists

In this paper I shall address two major issues. Firstly, I shall discuss the implications for economic theory of a conception of economic laws widely at variance with the empiricist and/or positivist account of what laws are, how they are discovered, and how they are related to theory. At the same time, I will reject one cornerstone of anti-positivist thought, namely the idea that one cannot provide an account of laws that is fundamentally the same for the natural and the social sciences. Thus, I shall argue that an anti-positivist account of laws is entirely compatible with a conception of scientific laws that applies to both the "hard" (natural) and the "soft" (social) sciences. I shall defend this position by showing its application to economics and economic laws. In doing so, I will compare and contrast both natural-scientific (primarily physical) laws and social-scientific (primarily economic) laws. Secondly, I will argue that perhaps the most significant economic law descriptive of mature capitalism is the law of secular stagnation. The latter states that it is the natural tendency of a developed, industrialized capitalist economy to default to a state of chronic excess capacity and underconsumption. And this is itself a result of the tendency in advanced capitalism for the economic surplus (roughly, the difference between the Gross Domectic Product and the cost of producing the GDP) to grow at a rate more rapid than the growth of profitable industrial investment opportunities. In the course of my discussion I will use the United States as a paradigm case, Much as Marx attempted to identify the underlying features of the accumulation process by reference to England during the Industrial Revulution.

This has in fact been the state of global capital since the end of the "Golden Age" and the commencement of the age of globalized Reaganism/Thatcherism, i.e. the Age of Neoliberalism. I date the transition as commencing in 1973, the last year of post-War Keynesian growth rates in the USA. In fact, I will argue, neoliberal economic policy exacerbates capitalism'a tendency to stagnation. Let me begin with an account of economic laws.

LAWS, GENERATIVE MECHANISMS AND TENDENCIES

On the Humean or radical empiricist (positivist) account of laws, the latter are descriptions of observed regularities. Presumably, the scientist observes a "constant conjunction" of different kinds of happening, and infers from the regularity of the conjunction that the latter could not be merely accidental, and so concludes that the observed pattern of regularities must be nomological or law-like. 'Sodium chloride dissolves in water' and 'Metal expands when heated' would be simple examples of the results of this account of how laws of nature are discovered.

That this empiricist account is flawed becomes evident when we consider full-fledged laws of a genuine natural science, e.g. physics. I emphasize that laws are components of theories, which themselves are constitutive of established scientific disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and biology. In fact, the two "laws" mentioned at the end of the preceding paragraph are not laws of physics at all. Among the genuine laws of physics is, e.g., 'Falling bodies near the surface of the earth accelerate at a constant rate.' This law is certainly not established by the observation of repeated conjunctions of events. On the contrary, actually observed falling bodies in "open systems", that is, in the circumstances of everyday life, conspicuously fail to conform to this law. Yet this is not taken to refute the law. For the law describes the behavior of bodies in a vacuum, that is to say, in a "closed system", one created by the scientist, typically in a laboratory situation. Philosophers of science have tended to ignore the distinction between regularities observed only in closed systems, and conjunctions observed in everyday life, which, as such, have no value as contributions to scientific knowledge. These philosophers have, accordingly, written as if the regularities in question were features of open systems, of nature. This confusion impedes our understanding of all types of laws, from physical to economic.

This failure –until relatively recently- of philosophers of science to properly attend to the importance of laboratory work in the acquisition of scientific knowledge is due to the fact that these philosophers have focused almost exclusively on science as established theory, i.e. as a way of representing the world. They had ignored how these theories were actually established. That is, they paid little attention to experiment, which is a way of intervening in the world. This inattention to what happens in closed systems created in the laboratory led thinkers to miss the importance of the concept of tendencies or dispositions in grasping the concept of a law of science. Let us dwell on this point and its relation to economic laws.

It is not that our knowledge of natural laws is not based on observed regularities. The point, rather, is that these regularities are not found in nature. They are found in closed systems, elaborately designed experimental circumstances found in laboratories. Yet, we correctly believe that what we learn in experimental situations gives us knowledge that is not confined to these situations. We believe that what we learn from observations of repeated patterns in experiments gives us not only knowledge of the behavior of objects in laboratory circumstances, but also knowledge of these same (kinds of) objects as they behave in nature, in the open systems of everyday life. But scientifically significant repeated patterns are not found in the world of daily life. This raises profound epistemological and ontological questions.

The most significant epistemological question arises from the following consideration: Were it not for the intervention of the experimenter, closed-system regularities would not obtain. Hence, the experimenter is a causal agent of the pattern of regularities observed in the laboratory. It is these contrived conjunctions which we invoke to justify our belief in (usually causal) laws. And while these regularities are the (partial) result of the intervention of the experimenter, we do not believe that the experimenter in any way originates the laws whose existence is attested to by the contrived regularities. The question therefore arises: What justifies our (correct) belief that knowledge obtained in closed laboratory systems designed by an agent applies also in open systems, i.e. in nature, which of course is not designed by scientists and does not evidence the regularities found under designed experimental circumstances?

I want to suggest that this question comes to the same as the following question: What must nature be like, and what must experiment reveal, in order for experimental knowledge to be able to be legitimately extended to the world outside of the laboratory, i.e. to nature? Note that this is a Realist question: it asks what we must presuppose about the constitution of the world in order that our experimentally-based scientific beliefs be justified. This is the precise Realist counterpart to Kant's Idealist question: What must we presoppose our minds –as opposed to nature or the world- to be like in order for scientific knowledge to be possible? I will argue that the answer to our Realist question provides the conceptual resources to elucidate the general nature of economic laws and economic theory, and the nature of the subject matter investigated by economists.

I will argue that since we believe that what we learn by experimental observation justifies our claim to knowledge of the experimental objects as they behave in nature, we must assume that these objects possess natural structures, similar to what Aristotle and the scholastics called "natures" or "essences." A natural structure must be conceived as what Critical Realists call a generative mechanism (hereafter, GM). The latter is a specific mode of material organization. What GMs generate are tendencies or dispositions to behave in characteristic ways. The statement that a physical thing or a social institution or structure tends to generate characteristic regularities is a statement of a law. The natural structure of salt, expressed in chemistry as HCl, is such that when it is mixed with water, whose natural structure or organization is expressed as H2O, it tends to dissolve. Gases tend to expand when heated and falling bodies near the surface of the earth tend to accelerate at a constant rate. These are statements of chemical and physical laws. We shall see that precisely the same kind of analysis can be made of laws in economics.

Tendencies are not the same as trends. The latter are merely observed regularities; there need be no implication that an underlying structural feature of the thing in question generates the regularity. This feature of laws is reflected in ordinary language in non-scientific contexts: we might say "He has a tendency to exaggerate." We mean that a disposition to exaggerate is a natural expression of his underlying character. We do not usually mean that he exaggerates whenever it is possible for him to exaggerate. This is part of the meaning of 'tendency.' Thus, tendencies can exist without being exercised. This happens when, e.g. salt is not mixed with water. Salt's nomological tendency to dissolve in water remains its categorical property even in the absence of circumstances in which its tendency to dissolve can be exercised. In addition, tendencies can be exercised without being realized. This is the case in the natural sciences when we observe, in non-laboratory situations, falling bodies accelerating at different rates. Indeed, no falling body in open systems is observed to accelerate at a constant or the same rate. But of course this is not taken to falsify the law of falling bodies. In nature, GMs continue to act in their characteristic ways without producing the patterned outcomes observable in closed experimental systems. This is so because in nature a multiplicity of GMs combine, interact and collide such as to result in the (scientifically irrelevant) flux of phenomena of the everyday world. The realization of a natural tendency can, in other words, be offset by counteracting forces. Thus, empiricism's mistake is to fail to recognize that GMs operate independent of the effects they generate. That is, GMs endure and go on acting (in the way that experimental closure enables us to identify) in nature, i.e. in open systems, where patterned regularities do not prevail. Statements about tendencies are not equivalent, salva veritate, to statements about their effects. Laws may exist and exercise their tendencies or powers even though no Humean "constant conjunctions" are observed. (This would be the case if it happened that the practice of creating closed experimental conditions had never been engaged in, i.e. in a world without science.)

LAWS, GENERATIVE MECHANISMS AND TENDENCIES IN ECONOMICS

GMs are not confined to the natural world. Natural structures are not the only structures there are. Plainly, there are humanely constructed structures. Capitalism is one such structure. Structures of this kind, GMs, that are dynamic by nature, i.e. which are characteristically diachronic, be they natural or socially constituted, share the same ontology. This should not be confused with the radical empiricist (positivist) claim that the natural and the social sciences share the same method. Clearly they do not: closed experimental situations exist but are not typical i istic outcomes ceteris paribus, ie. other things being equal, i.e. ceteris absentibus, other things being absent. When we identify the tendency of a thing, we specify what will happen, as a matter of course, if interfering conditions are absent. That is the point of vacuums in the closed systems created in laboratory experiments: they permit exercised tendencies, i.e. tendencies in operation, to be realized. If we want to know what gases tend to do when acted upon by heat, we eliminate all potential counteracting forces by creating a vacuum in the chamber, so that both gas and heat can express their natures unimpeded.

Thus, implicit in both physical- and social-scientific practice is the crucial distinction between the exercise and the realization (or manifestation) of a tendency. This distinction is essential to structural analysis in economics because of the impossibility of creating the social equivalent of a vacuum in the social sciences, which deal with the open systems of everyday life, where a great many forces and tendencies collide. Accordingly, just as the law of the tendency of falling bodies to accelerate at a constant rate is not falsified by the failure of falling bodies to behave accordingly in open systems, so too, e.g., the law of the tendency of the growth of productive capacity to outpace the growth of profitable investment opportunities -the thesis of secular stagnation theory- is not undermined by the remarkable growth rates of the Golden Age. In both cases, the presence of offsetting factors prevents the structurally generated tendency from being realized or manifested. I argue that the same can be said for any putative economic law.

In social science –and this is most conspicuous in economics, the most theoretically developed of the human sciences- we compensate for the absence of experimentally closed systems by constructing their functional equivalent, which we might call, in terms redolent of Weber, an ideal-typical theoretical model. It is an unfortunate habit (perhaps a tendency in the above-elaborated sense…) of mainstream economists to employ these models as if they described the open-system observable facts of economic life. This is, I suspect, a consequence of the economic empiricist's mistake referred to above, namely to think that GMs, if they must be spoken of at all, are to be conceived as reducible to their effects. (Recall Hume's claim, inspired by his reading of Newton, to expunge all notions of "power", "generation" and "production" from his analyses.) But, as noted above, GMs in both the social and the natural sciences employ unrealistic models, i.e. models which do not pretend to offer the equivalent of a photographic representation of the world. In both natural-scientific experiments and social-scientific ideal-type models, an attempt is made to abstract from the nonessential. We seek to place the spotlight of theory on what is necessary to the situation, system or institution under investigation, and to prescind from the arbitrary and accidental. In economics we seek to identify those features of capitalism that make it what it is. This enables us to identify capitalism's distinct and characteristic tendencies, and to describe what will happen as a result of the exercise of these tendencies, ceteris absentibus.

That there are such tendencies seems to me to be uncontroversial. We all know, for example, that cyclical downturns are not mere empirical contingencies of capitalist development, but structurally generated tendencies which follow inexorably from the specific mode of organization (structure) of capitalism. And like all tendencies, their realization can be offset, as we have seen above, by counteracting factors, such as fiscal and monetary policy. Other examples would be what Marx called the tendencies of capital to concentrate and centralize. The tendency, and corresponding law, with which I will be primarily concerned in this paper is constitutive of the theory of secular stagnation, and is far more likely than the immediately foregoing examples to generate controversy. I refer to the tendency of mature capitalism to suffer from a chronic paucity of profitable industrial investment opportunities, relative to the great magnitude of its investable surplus. Let us look more closely at this tendency.

THE THEORY OF SECULAR STAGNATION

It is worth mentioning that the view that the continuous accumulation of capital is both essential to the normal development of capitalist societies and essentially self-limiting was held by virtually all of the major modern political economists, in the form of one version or another of the doctrine of the falling rate of profit. Adam Smith explained the secular decline of the profit rate by the increasing abundance of capital in a developing capitalist society. Ricardo and Mill believed that the rate of profit would be depressed by the diminishing productivity of the land which would drive up the price of wage goods and therefore of the wages of labor, and so drive down the profits of capital. Marx pointed to the increasing capital-intensity of industry and the paucity of working-class purchasing power relative to the productive capacity of the economy, as the principal threat to the profit rate. And Keynes held that in mature capitalist economies the "marginal efficiency of capital", i.e. the expected rate of return (over cost) on an additional unit of a given capital asset, would tend to decline. All these thinkers had an at least intuitive appreciation of the fact that the growth of capital tends to be terminally self-limiting. (It is worth citing a remark of Joseph Shumpeter at this point:

"Though Keynes's 'breakdown theory is quite different from Marx's, it has an important feature in common with the latter: in both theories, the breakdown is motivated by causes inherent to the working of the economic engine, not by the action of factors external to it.")

In my estimation, no one understood the underlying dynamics of the tendency to stagnation better than the Polish economist Michal Kalecki, who is known to have developed the essentials of Keynes's General Theory before Keynes himself (and to have produced far more elegant mathematical formulations thereof). Perhaps the best way to understand Kalecki's thought is to see him as having argued that certain features of a not-yet-mature industrializing economy persist after the process of industrialization has been accomplished, with the effect that the developed capitalist economy is saddled with a problem of chronic excess capacity. Let me sketch this train of thought.

In the course of their natural growth capitalist economies reach a level of industrial development characterizable as maturity, a point beyond which growth must either cease, or be sustained by exogenous (in a sense to be elucidated below) means. Straight away we are confronted with a rejection of an assumption that is implicit in mainstream neoclassical theory, viz. that both the supply and the demand curves shift, virtually automatically, to the right. On the stagnationist conceptualization of growth or development, the process of development is not everlasting, but rather is at some point accomplished. There is the period, industrialization, during which the economy is developing, and which culminates in a (finally) industrialized or developed infrastructure. At this stage there will have been built up, or "accumulated", a complement of plant and equipment in steel production, machine tools, power stations, transport systems, etc., that is capable of satisfying a level of consumption demand consistent with the moral limits of a reasonably civilized style of life, the constraints imposed by a finite fund of natural resources, and, most importantly for stagnation theory, the limited possibilities of what Marx called "expanded reproduction" imposed by the accumulation process itself.

This account point can be expanded as follows. During any period of industrialization, the growth of the capital goods industry (hereafter, following Marx, Department I, or DI) must outpace the growth of the consumption goods industries (hereafter, again following Marx, Department II, or DII). Indeed, it belongs to the nature of the process of industrialization that the demand for the output of DI cannot be a function of the behavior of consumption demand; during industrialization, investment demand is both rapid and relatively autonomous. For if the principal project is to develop the means of production, then a disproportionate share of national wealth must be devoted to investment/accumulation at the expense of consumption. Strategic capital goods such as transport and communications networks and steel mills cannot be built bit by bit. This is clear with respect to railroads (Recall Keynes's remark that "Two pyramids are better than one, and two masses for the dead better than one; but two railroads from London to York are not necessarily better than one."), but perhaps not as clear with respect to steel facilities.

Suppose 1) that the efficient production of steel requires equipment with the capacity to produce 200,000 tons of steel, and 2) that demand turns out to be for 300,000 tons. The investor has two alternatives, either to forgo an extra market or to take a chance and add another 200.000 tons. On the second alternative, the one virtually assured in a period of (rapid) industrialization, the manufacturer is left with a surplus capacity of 100,000 tons. Here we see, writ small, a crucial source of two basic tendencies of capitalist development, the unrelenting pressure to expand markets, and the tendency to overproduction of a specific kind, namely the overproduction of capital goods, the tendency to overaccumulation. Each of these tendencies is the basis of a corresponding law of economics: Wherever we find a competitive, profit-driven market economy, we must also find a system-driven tendency to expand markets, and: Wherever we find a competitive, profit-driven market economy, we must also find a system-driven tendency for the growth of productive capacity to outpace the growth of effective demand.

As we have seen, all the major classical political economists anticipated the stationary state; they all assumed that the period of development or industrialization would come to an end. Basic industries would be in place, and DI would be capable of meeting all the replacement and expansion demands of DII. Prescinding for the moment from the emergence of new industries, DI would no longer be a source of substantial expansion demand for its own output; most of DI's internal expansion demand would be extinct.

But this is not th hread of classical (and perhaps neoclassical) theory contains the assurance that the capitalist economy provides a mechanism that in the long run counteracts the tendency of the demand for the products of DI to peter out. As one might expect, this is the price mechanism, which brings about, in the circumstances described above, a falling rate of profit (or interest) and thereby a simultaneous check on accumulation and spur to consumption. The causal chain is simple: the fall of the profit rate would lower capital's share of national income, i.e. it would transfer income from capital to labor. Thus, the demand gap created by the sharp waning of DI's expansion demand would be made up by the increase in consumption demand, which would of course mean an expansion in the demand for the output of DII. Moreover, an immediate expansion of DII at the expense of DI in order to assure a rapid transition out of the stationary state would be entirely feasible given the adaptability of certain key industries in DI to new market conditions resulting from the newly-expanded purchasing power of the working class. The construction of new factories could, for example, yield to the construction of new homes.

The theoretical elegance of this scenario is impressive -almost inspirational- but, alas for illusions, the price mechanism does not work this way. For the above-mentioned transfer in national income from capital to labor is supposed to happen when industrialization comes to an end by virtue of its having been accomplished. But from the capitalists' perspective, it is as if nothing counts as industrialization coming to an end. New industries, for example, can create a situation functionally equivalent to industrialization. "Accumulate, accumulate, that is Moses and the prophets."

We have at this point arrived at a picture of a developed capitalist economy which is in a state of permanent industrialization. Excess capacity prevails and working-class income is stagnant or declining. Interestingly, this has in fact been the state of both the U.S. and the global economy since 1973. According to the foregoing analysis, this reflects the fact that the U.S. and global economies are now instances not merely of the exercise of the law of the tendency of mature capitalism to stagnate, but of its realization. To put it differently: these economies are now in their natural state.

But important questions immediately arise. Why are these economies in their natural state now? And if there is a structurally generated tendency for capitalist economies to stagnate, how shall we account for the historically unprecedented growth rates of the Golden Age? I have barely sketched an outline of a response to these challenges above: if there is indeed a tendency for capitalism to stagnate, then there must have been in operation during the Golden Age what I called "counteracting forces and tendencies" which had spent themselves by the mid-1970s. In the absence of new offsetting forces, the tendency to stagnate has, as we should expect, re-asserted itself. These claims require further elaboration, and it is to this task that I now turn.

SECULAR STAGNATION AND TRANSFORMATIONAL GROWTH

In order to account for the actual pattern of capitalist growth in the context of stagnation theory, we must reflect on the kind of growth required by capitalist economic arrangements. Mainstream theory does not distinguish between kinds of growth if and when it addresses the specific requirements of capitalist growth at all. This is, I believe, a serious error. I will begin by introducing the notion of transformational growth, which transforms the entire way of life of society and absorbs exceptionally large amounts of the investible surplus. My point shall be that a capitalist economy cannot sustain growth merely by producing more and more different types of widgets, in the absence of pervasive structural change. Growth sustained in the latter manner is transformational growth.

We are forced to introduce the concept of transformational growth for reasons related to my earlier discussion of the structural features of mature capitalism which generates a chronic tendency to stagnation. I will now embellish this analysis. It should be clear that capitalism cannot grow in the way in which a balloon grows: its growth cannot leave its proportions intact, i.e. such that there are no new products and no new processes of production. This is to say that a capitalist economy either undergoes transformational growth or it stagnates. The argument is as follows.

Investment expands productive capacity, which in turn requires that demand increase at the same rate as potential production. Without the required rate of demand growth, underutilization/excess capacity will discourage further investment or capital accumulation and the result will of course be stagnation. Let us not address this issue in the manner of the neoclassical economist, who seems to assume that both supply and demand curves can be counted on to perennially shift to the right (absent, of course, undue government interference). But this quaint assumption is belied by the enormous literature on the development and indispensability to capitalism of the marketing and advertising industries, which we might view as massive efforts to counteract Keynes's declining marginal propensity to consume by deliberately creating among the consuming masses a full panoply of "manufactured" consumption desires. These considerations point to the need constantly to exogenously stimulate consumption demand in order to narrow the demand gap generated by the tendency to overaccumulation. But they do not yet establish the need to generate a broad, nation-wide pattern of demand required by structural change and transformational growth.

What is needed at this point are concrete examples of the generators of transformational growth, and of exactly how these generators accomplish one of the fundamental features of transformational growth, the mobilization and coordination of the economic resources of the entire country into a grand national project which stimulates demand not merely for this and that consumption good, but for crucial commodities and institutions such as oil, steel rubber, and other primary products, and communication and transportation facilities. What this requires are what Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy termed, in their influential Monopoly Capital (Monthly Review Press, 1966), "epoch-making innovations". Edward Nell and Robert Heilbroner have characterized these same innovations as "transformative innovations". Let me approach transformative innovations by looking at the tendency to stagnation from yet another perspective, one which focuses on the role of competition as a major force behind the growth of both investment and consumption.

Competition reduces the need for investment by tending to increase both productivity and savings. Let us see how this happens. As a result of competition business is under continuous pressure to cut costs and produce more efficiently. To the extent that business succeeds in these respects, productive potential is increased. At the same time, competition also requires business to hold down wages and salaries and to pay out dividend and profit income relatively sparingly. Together, these pressures hold back both worker and capitalist consumption. The result is a tendency for productive capacity to expand faster than consumption. This means that there is no reason for investment to grow, for capital to achieve the required rate of accumulation, unless there are major pressures transforming the way people live. In the absence of such pressures, we may expect stagnation.

There are two dimensions of transformative innovations which are in fact two aspects of the same phenomenon. One dimension is solely technological, and the other points to changes in a population's entire way of life. Neither of these is part of a process of steady, balloon-like growth, nor is either automatically, or normally, generated by the fundamental capitalist dynamics identified by the mainstream textbooks. For this reason I have called the stimulus imparted by these innovations 'exogenous'. Let us look first at the technological dimension of transformative innovation.

This can be identified, after the owl of Minerva has spread its wings, by reflecting on some of the requirements of ideal-typical capitalism. Neoliberals correctly remind us that the bottom line is of course "freedom", primarily the freedom of capital to roam the world seeking markets, sources of cheap labor and investment opportunities. Microecenomic textbooks in fact tend to assume the perfect mobility of both capital and labor.

Let us focus on sources of power, which became especially important after the industrial revolution. Technological development resulted in the virtually total replacement of human and animal muscle power by inanimate sources of power, mainly water and steam. But reliance on water as a source of power places extreme limits on the mobility of capital, and hence on the possibilities of capitalist growth. Water power is site-specific, and the number of rivers and streams is limited. Moreover, the water had to be fast-running and productive facilities had to be located as far downstream as possible. And of course water power is only seasonally available. These restraints alone place an intolerable obstacle to the free and ongoing accumulation of capital. Here we find an overwhelming incentive to switch from water to steam power. This constitutes a huge stimulus to the accumulation of capital on a national scale.

Capitalism requires sources of power that are independent of nature and can be applied constantly wherever they are needed. And these are precisely what steam power made possible. It was now possible to set up productive facilities virtually anywhere; a major fetter to the accumulation of capital was removed. The universal mobility required by capital was now much more fully realized. At this point I want to emphasize that this technological /economic transformation was necessarily accompanied by profound social and cultural changes. For the steam engine's reduction of the seasonality of water power made possible a feature of work that is increasingly common on a global scale: the emergence of modern year-round work habits. With this change comes a dramatic transformation of our notions (and practices) of work and leisure, with all the consequences these have for the felt experience of everyday life. That is an instance of the second dimension of transformative innovation, i.e. its introduction of dramatic cultural changes, changes in the way populations live.

Much the same can be said for the subsequent shift to electrical power, which makes possible trolley cars, refrigerators (as opposed to what used to be called, in the U.S., "ice boxes"), ranges, toasters, radios, washing machines, fans, et al.

The railroad too is a transformative innovation par excellence. Consider the spectacular effects of railroad expansion: internal transport costs are sharply reduced; both new products and new geographical areas are brought into commercial markets; it is now possible to deliver exports to port with unprecedented efficiency, thereby encouraging the extensive development of the export sector; and impetus is provided to the development of the coal, iron and engineering industries. As with the steam engine, these technological and economic benefits wee necessarily accompanied by profound social and cultural changes. The railroads changed the way of life of the people by binding them as never before. The possibility now existed for mass production, mass consumption and indeed mass culture.

And of course the establishment of a national rail network absorbed massive amounts of investible capital, thereby spurring sustainable growth and offsetting the realization of the economic law that capitalist economies tend to stagnate. Apropos: in the latter third of the nineteenth century, railroad investment in the U.S. amounted to more than all investment in manufacturing industries.

And who can doubt that the transformative effects of the introduction of the automobile were epoch-making? The expansion of the automobile industry was the single most important force in the economic expansion of the 1920s. Car production increased threefold during this decade. (The automobile industry produced 12.7% of all manufactured output, employed 7.1% of all manufacturing workers, and paid 8.7% of all industrial wages.) Immediately after World War II the auto industry continued what was to be its breakneck expansion, and the possibilities created thereby constituted what was perhaps the most extensive transformation of the country's way of life in its history.

Consider the stimulus to capital accumulation and employment constituted by the following, each and all a consequence of the increasing automobilization of American society and culture: the migration of the population from the central city to the suburbs and exurbs (first made possible by the streetcar, before the major streetcar operations were bough and then quickly dismantled by the auto companies); the need for surfaced roads, road construction and maintenance, highway construction and maintenance (which had already accounted for 2% of GDP in 1929); the suburbanization of America, with the attendant construction of housing, schools, hospitals, workplaces, and more; the growth of shopping malls; the expansion of the credit industry; the spread of hotels and motels; and of course the growth of the tourism/travel industry. Never before had any population's way of living been transformed so profoundly in so short a period of time. And of course no one has failed to recognize that Americans' main symbol of their most precious possession, their personal freedom/liberty, is their ability to drive, solo, cars that have increasingly come to resemble tanks. Americans' liberty, embodied in the automobile, has become, literally, a commodity.

The long-term growth of the U.S. economy cannot be adequately explained or described without reference to these transformative innovations. None of these are required by the models of capital accumulation found in neoclassical, Keynesian or Marxian growth theory. After the civil war, growth in the last third of the nineteenth century was spurred primarily by the railroads. This stimulus fizzled, as railroad expansion began to slow down, around 1907, when, in spite of extensive electrification of urban (and even some rural) areas, the U.S. economy began a stretch of slow growth, which lasted until the outbreak of World War I. After the end of the War, the economy experienced a brief slump, which was followed by a period of fairly sustained expansion in the 1920s. The latter, as we have seen, was spurred mainly by the growth of the automobile industry. But the rate of growth of the automobile industry slowed down after 1926, and with it the rate of growth of almost all other manufacturing industries. And wages and employment had not risen as rapidly as production, productivity or profits.

In fact, the economic situation in the U.S. at the end of the 1920s bore a remarkable resemblance to the current economic situation in America. After 1926 overcapacity emerged in many key industries, the most significant of these being automobiles, textiles, and residential construction. Contractionary forces are cumulative: excess capacity caused business confidence to decline, with resulting cutbacks in spending on productive capacity in the consumer durables and capital goods industries. The economy was intensely unsound at the end of the 1920s, and the indications at the time were clear. Consumer demand was held down by a steadily growing inequality of income. Thus, an increasing percentage of total purchases were financed by credit in order to foster purchases of consumer durables. About seventy-five percent of all cars were sold on credit. Accordingly, both home mortgages and installment debt grew rapidly. This was the extension of a trend that had begun as early as 1922, when total personal debt began rising faster than disposable income. Thus, underconsumption and traces of excess capacity, key indicators of stagnationist forces, were in effect from the very beginning of the "roaring '20s". These tendencies became increasingly foregrounded over the course of the decade.

Excess capacity in key manufacturing industries was displacing workers from capital-intensive, technologically advanced sectors to industries relatively devoid of technological advance, i.e. service industries such as trade, finance and government. With capital unable to find sufficiently profitable investment opportunities in high-productivity industries, rampant speculative activity ensued, fostered by the growing concentration of income and therefore savings during the decade. More than two thirds of all personal savings was held by slightly over two percent of all families. The wanton optimism of the 1920s led those with substantial savings to want to get richer quickly, and with little effort. The stock market bubble that materialized at the end of the decade seemed to justify the expectations that fortunes could be made overnight in real estate and the stock market. When investors acted on these expectations, the existing bubble became bigger and hence more fragile. To those familiar with the current state of the U.S. economy, the present situation presents itself as history repeating itself -contra Marx- yet again as farce.

FROM GREAT DEPRESSION TO GOLDEN AGE TO NEOLIBERALISM

The mounting instabilities of the economy of the 1920s led to a Depression that was unresponsive to the Roosevelt administration's elevenfold increase in government spending. When U.S. entry into World War II finally brought about a resumption of growth, there was nonetheless an abiding fear among economists that once War spending ceased, the forces and tendencies that had generated the Depression might reassert themselves and exceptionally slow growth could resume. Instead, much to the surprise of many economists, American capitalism began the most sustained period of expansion in its entire history. The period from 1947 to 1973 has come to be called "The Golden Age", and appears, on the face of it, to be a fatal anomaly with respect to secular stagnation theory. After all, if the causes of the Great Depression were structural, and the exogenous stimulus provided by the War was what produced a resumption of growth, how was it possible that the economy, in the absence of powerful exogenous stimulus, exhibited an historically unprecedented period of long-term growth?

I have suggested that sustained national (as opposed to intra-national regional) growth has been engendered by the emergence of transformative innovations, and it is this kind of consideration that I believe offers the most plausible explanation both of Golden-Age expansion and of the petering out of this growth period and the resumption of (global) stagnation. Five stimuli to long-term growth were set in motion after the War, and these were for the most part exogenous in the sense indicated, and essentially limited. I will construe these stimuli as forces counteracting the tendency to stagnation. Once most of these stimuli had spent their potential, stagnationist tendencies re-asserted themselves, and overinvestment became evident once again. With profitable industrial investment opportunities in short supply, the economic surplus was invested instead in what became a vast proliferation of financial instruments. When the bubble created by this process finally burst, it was replaced with a housing bubble. Indeed a variety of bubbles, in financial assets, in housing, in credit, and a substantially overvalued dollar now threaten an historically unparalleled reassertion of the tendency to stagnation. But let us look first at the counteracting forces.

After the War, and as a result of wartime rationing, Americans had accumulated a very large fund of savings, and the time had come when these could finally be spent. This accounted for an immediate surge of consumption spending which temporarily averted the onset of recession. But the effectiveness of this source of spending was soon spent. What truly impelled the sustained growth of the Golden Age was 1) the resumption of a vast expansion of the automobile industry, and with it the stimulation of the broad range of investment and employment opportunities discussed above in connection with automobilization; 2) large-scale economic aid to Europe, which stimulated export demand; 3) a nationwide process of suburbanization, which, in tandem with the expansion of auto production, expanded significantly the demand for the output of every other major industry; 4) the emergence of what president Eisenhower christened the "military-industrial" complex, which provided additional stimulus to the industries most vulnerable to economic instability, the industries of DI, the capital goods sector; and finally 5) the steady and growing expansion of business and especially consumer credit, which in recent years has assumed elephantine proportions.

Three of these factors bear the two most important features of epoch-making innovations. The expansion of the auto industry, suburbanization, and the ever-increasing expansion and extension of credit all absorb massive amounts of investible surplus, and transform the mode of life of the entire population. In so doing they impart a massive push to the macro-growth process. The first two of these have their initial direct effect on investment. The third factor, the growing importance of credit, affects both investment and consumption, but the long-term trend of the credit industry in the U.S., evident now in hindsight, is much more significant in relation to consumption. There is now in the States a credit bubble of menacing proportions, with consumers now in debt to the tune of about107% of disposable income. The Marshall Plan (number 2 above) affected mainly and directly investment and employment, with boosts to consumption following thereupon. By the mid- to late-1970s, the employment-generating capacity of the military had declined. Washington determined, in the light of the defeat in Vietnam, that hi-tech warfare, which is of course technology- rather than labor-intensive, must replace traditional forms of subversion and aggression, in order to render less likely a repeat of the "Vietnam Syndrome."

It is worth mentioning that the military-industrial complex and the vast extension of consumer credit were what constituted what Joan Robinson called "bastard Keynesianism" in the United States. Recall that Keynes had insisted that fiscal and monetary policy were necessary but not sufficient conditions for avoiding stagnation. The tendency to stagnation could be offset for the long run only if some key industries were nationalized, and income redistributed. Nationalization would allow the State to offset lagging demand by providing cheap inputs to the private sector, thereby enabling lower prices. And redistributing income would transfer liquidity from those who had more than they could either consume or invest to those whose consumption demand was severely constrained.

American policymakers saw it as their challenge to reap the effects of nationalization and redistribution without actually nationalizing industries or redistributing income. The solution was ingenious: the military-industrial complex would be the functional equivalent of state-owned industries, and would, as noted above, stimulate the demand for the output of those very firms that produced capital goods. And the extension of consumer credit would allow working people to mortgage future years' incomes and spend more without a corresponding increase in either their private or their social wage.

As mentioned earlier, these forces counteracting the tendency to stagnation were all inherently limited and temporary. By the late 1960s, the automobile industry had achieved maturity, suburbanization had been accomplished, and aid to Europe had not only long ended, but had apparently created for America the economic equivalent of Frankenstein's monster. Europe and Japan were now formidable threats to U.S. economic hegemony. (Germany, for example, has overtaken the U.S. as an exporter of capital goods.) These three colossal absorbers of surplus were now no longer in operation. In the mid-1960s social spending had overtaken military spending as the larger share of government spending. And credit had begun to function as a supplement to declining real income, rather than a further addition to growing income.

These combined developments rendered the post-War counters to the realization of the tendency to stagnation obsolete. The result was the onset of stagnation not only in the U.S. but also worldwide. In America there has been overcapacity in autos, steel, shipbuilding and petrochemicals since the mid- to late-1970s.

This general picture is widely reflected in the business press. Business Week noted that "..supply outpaces demand everywhere, sending prices lower, eroding corporate profits and increasing layoffs" (Jan. 25, 1999, p. 118). The former chairman of General Electric claimed that "..there is excess capacity in almost every industry" (The New York Times, Nov. 16, 1997, p. 3). The Wall Street Journal noted that "..from cashmere to blue jeans, silver jewelry to aluminum cans, the world is in oversupply" (Nov. 30, 1998, p. A17). And The Economist fretted that " the gap between sales and capacity is "at its widest since the 1930s" (Feb. 20, 1999, p. 15). At this time excess capacity in steel is exceeding twenty percent, in autos it has fluctuated around 30%. And these figures look good in comparison to unused capacity numbers in the "industries of the future" of the "New Economy", semiconductors and telecommunications. Not long ago, ninety-seven percent of fibre optic capacity was idle.

MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS AND STAGNATION THEORY

Let us begin with the indisputable fact that the regime of neoliberalism has brought with it a substantial decline in economic growth. The most widely cited study on this issue, produced for the IECD by Angus Maddison, shows that the annual rate of growth of real global GDP fell from 4.9% in 1950-1973 to 3 % in 1973-1998, a drop of 39 %. Theoretical commitments can guide perception: neoliberal economists either denied or ignored the decline in global growth because of their reliance on Say's Law, that it is not possible for total demand to fall below full-capacity supply over the long run. In my earlier remarks I offered an explanation of sluggish growth rates since 1973. Many orthodox economics have done something similar: they have offered explanations of the initial rise in excess capacity. But what has not been explained is why global supply did not eventually adjust itself to the slower rate of demand growth, with the result that in the mid-1970s the global economy would enter a period of sluggish expansion. And it is worth mentioning that even Keynesian macro-theory is inadequate in this regard. It assumes that slow growth in aggregate demand will result in a proportionate decline in the growth of aggregate supply through its effect upon investment and therefore productivity.

An adequate explanation of the sustained character of excess capacity can be constructed from insights from Schumpeter, Marx and the contemporary economist James Crotty. The analysis that follows should be understood within the framework of the version of secular stagnation theory sketched above.

Before the shift to neoliberal policies by Jimmy Carter, Reagan and Thatcher, the global economy was already subject to downward pressures on demand growth resulting from two oil price shocks and the restrictive macro policy imposed in response to oil-price induced inflation. These impediments to demand growth were exacerbated by neoliberal policies. In combination, these forces led to a sharp rise in excess capacity in globally competing industries. At the same time competitive pressures were further intensified by the reduction of the market power of national oligopolies caused by the removal of protectionist barriers to the free movement of goods and money across national boundaries. Accordingly, competitive pressures between nations rose dramatically. In this context, normal stagnationist tendencies operated to further constrain global demand growth and further reproduce industrial capacity faster than either neoclassical or Keynesian theory could comprehend.

The Achilles Heel of neoclassical theory with respect to its inability to account for the persistence of overcapacity during the neoliberal period is its account of competition. So-called "perfect competition" is alleged to lead to maximum efficiency and the elimination of excess capacity. This claim appears inconsistent with the history of real-world, pre- and post-oligopolistic competition. Textbook-like competition has led to periodic market gluts or overproduction crises, price wars, plummeting profits, unbearable debt burdens and violent labor relations. Neoclassical theory banishes these demons with the aid of two assumptions which appear designed explicitly to make them impossible. The first assumption claims that production cost per unit rises rapidly as output increases, and the second that exit from low-profit industries is free or costless. If these assumptions were indeed true, then pure competition could not be shown to have stagnation- or depression-inducing effects. But these assumptions are, I shall suggest, false.

I will begin with the least plausible of these two assumptions. It states that there is free or costless exit from low-profit industries. But productive assets are typically immobile or irreversible, i.e., they are not liquid, and this forces a sizeable loss in the value of a firm's capital should it choose to leave an unprofitable industry. Whether they are sold on a second-hand market or reallocated to a different industry, productive assets will lose substantial value. Capital flowing out of the aerospace industry has been found to sell for one third of its replacement cost. Insolvent telecom firms in the U.S. have sold their assets for 20 cents on the dollar. And isn't this what one would expect? For it is usually poor profit prospects and/or great excess capacity that heighten a firm's incentive to leave an industry. But it is precisely those circumstances which deeply depress the price of industry-specific assets on the second-hand market, since the supply of these assets grows even as the demand for them has collapsed.

Before I turn to the slightly more plausible (yet still false) assumption -that unit production cost rises dramatically as output increases- I will outline the corollary of neoclassical theory itself which neoclassical economists seek to evade by introducing this assumption. The theory tells us that pure competition will force price down until it covers marginal cost. Now if unit production cost remained constant irrespective of the output level, then marginal production cost and average production cost per unit would be equal. When perfect competition forces price to equal marginal cost, total revenue will be equal to total production cost. But in this case there will be no revenue left over either to pay the "fixed" cost of maintaining capital stock in the face of depreciation or obsolescence, or to pay interest and/or dividends to investors. Thus, perfect competition is seen to cause the representative firm to suffer, in each production period, a loss that is equal to fixed costs. Keeping in mind that most important global industries have huge fixed costs, no industry could long survive the consequences of intense competition.

We seem to have found a tendency to stagnation or complete system breakdown where we would least expect to find it - in neoclassical theory itself. But the theory claims to have a response to this embarrassment. It simply denies the claim that appears to entail the undesired consequence, namely the claim that unit production cost remains constant no matter what the output level. Armed now with the (false) assumption that unit production cost rises rapidly as production increases, the conclusion is drawn that marginal cost and price are greater than average unit production cost. Thus, in equilibrium, the gap between price and average production cost is sufficiently large to cover all fixed costs. Let competition be as fierce as you wish, the typical firm will not lose money. Voila!

I have claimed that each of the rescuing assumptions discussed above is false. What would realistic assumptions about marginal cost and the reversibility of invested capital look like? To answer this question we must recognize the distinctive character of the dominant industries of global trade and investment. These industries include steel, autos, aircraft, shipbuilding, petrochemicals, consumer durables, electronics, semiconductors and banking. Studies of this type of industry suggest that marginal cost does not typically rise with output, with the rare exception of cases when the industry is producing near full capacity output. Marginal cost behaves as we would expect in cases of economies of scale: it remains constant or declines as capacity utilization rises. It follows that if free competition forces price to equal marginal cost in these industries, we should count on an ensuing wave of bankruptcies. Here again we see that neoclassical theory, corrected for unrealistic assumptions, seems to commit us to conceptualize mature capitalism as subject to the law of an inherent tendency to stagnation or worse.

The issue I am focusing on here turns on the dynamics of unrestricted competition among oligopolies in the context of economies of scale. The importance of economies of scale underscores the crucial similarity of all the dominant industries, including the new information-technology and telecommunications (ITC) industries. I stress this point because influential neoclassical economists have wanted to claim a significant difference, with respect to overcapacity problems, between the ITC industries and the other dominant industries. For purposes of explaining the persistence of excess capacity under neoliberalism, we want to remember that as scale economies grow, marginal costs fall as fixed costs per unit rise. Thus, the greater the economies of scale, the more destructive becomes the marginal cost pricing required by intense competition. With this in mind, we can more easily see that 1) these dynamics in especially conspicuous operation in the ITC industries, and 2) that such differences as there are between ITC and the other dominant oligopolies are insignificant for the analysis of secular stagnation theory, and of capitalist growth in general.

The key issue right now, recall, is the highly destructive consequences of the tendency of free competition among dominant industries to force price to equal marginal cost. That this is the case is easier to see in the ITC sector than in the other dominant industries. This is because in ITC marginal cost is often close to zero. Producing another copy of software or adding another customer to eBay is virtually costless. This has led many mainstream economists to argue that ITC industries are exempt from the laws of the neoclassical theory of perfect competition. Since ITC firms have marginal costs much lower than their large fixed costs, the argument goes, the possession of at least temporary monopoly power is the only guarantee of an incentive to produce anything at all. Without monopoly pricing power prices will be competed down to marginal cost and fixed costs will be unable to be covered. Thus, the motor of the "new economy" is said to be the constant pursuit of monopoly power. But, contrary to the neoclassical claim, none of this distinguishes significantly between ITC and other key industries. The drive to monopoly power is characteristic of all large corporations in the present age.

As Paul Sweezy argued in his Marshall Lectures, the typical firm in an oligopolized industry strives to be a monopolist. Each firm does this individually, and they all do it collectively. Individual firms seek monopoly status through the sales effort, where the firm's product is put forth as the best in the industry and as different from all the others. Firms within the same industry seek to approach monopoly status by collusion with respect to pricing policy, especially by agreeing to refrain from cutthroat price competition. For reasons developed at length above, therefore, all dominant firms, whether old- or new-economy operations, will tend to achieve monopoly status and to be chronically saddled with excess capacity.

A SCANDALOUSLY BRIEF LOOK AT SLOW-GROWTH CAPITALISM

We are in the midst of another unparalleled period of historical capitalism. Since the onset of stagnation, the median wage in the States has not changed at all for the vast majority of wage workers. Over the past six quarters the gowth of wage income has been negative. A brief sketch of the state of the U.S. economy toward the end of last year highlights features whose most plausible explanation may lie in the fact of secular stagnation. If stagnation theory is accurate, what follows is precisely what we would expect to find. The current state of the U.S. and the global economy is best understood, I believe, against the background too briefly elaborated above. Here is a picture of the U.S. economy today. The key to a healthy economy is job- and income-creating investment in capital goods, which in turn generates a virtuous cycle of further growth in investment, jobs and income. Ominously, the investment, growth, employment and income pictures are unprecedentedly dismal.

Compared to cyclical recoveries between 1949 and 1973, recoveries during the neoliberal period have been weak. Indeed, one or two of the post-1973 upturns has been weaker than some downturns during the Golden Age. Since the stock market collapse of four years ago, the situation has worsened. Growth rates since 2000 have been half their previous average. Even this weak performance required historically unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus: 13 rate cuts, three tax cuts, massive government deficits and record growth in money and credit.

Official figures mask the economy's most serious problems. Growth figures are annualized by U.S. statisticians. Thus, the much-touted 7.1% growth rate in the third quarter of 2003 was the one that would emerge after twelve months if the current trend were to continue. The same growth rate would have been reported in the eurozone as 1.8%. This is an uncommonly weak performance.

Investment data are equally misleading. Since the mid-1990s the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has adjusted upward actual business dollar outlays on computers and related equipment to take into account quality improvements (faster processors, bigger hard drives, more memory). BEA calls this "hedonic adjustment." Accordingly, the BEA estimates that business high-tech investment quadrupled between 1996 and 2002, from $70.9 to $283.7. But in actual dollars spent, the increase was only from $70.9 billion to $74.2 billion, very low by historic standards. The high-tech boom was both greatly exaggerated and misleading. After all, neither profits nor wages are taken in "hedonically adjusted" dollars.

The difference between real and hedonic outlays explains what would otherwise be a paradoxical feature of the years 2000-2003: government was reporting big increases in high-tech investment, while manufacturers were bemoaning declining sales.

Hedonic pricing has accounted for a steadily rising percentage of all reported capital investment. But if we look at actual dollars spent, we find that since 1998 the growth rate of business fixed investment has actually been declining. Real capital investment has in fact not been this weak since the Great Depression.

The fudging of investment figures also obscures the sorry state of the jobs market. The Commerce Department's figures on nonresidential investment for the third and fourth quarters of 2003 reported increases of, respectively, 12.8 and 9.6%. A closer look reveals that the "adjusted" hi-tech sector is the only bright spot, with production and capacity rising, respectively, 24.6% and 11.1% over the past year. But hi-tech is not where significant jobs increases are found. Employment in hi-tech has declined steadily through the so-called "recovery" since its 2001 peak.

In non-hi-tech manufacturing, where investment figures are not adjusted, production from January 2003 to January 2004 rose only 0.9%, while capacity actually declined -0.2%. This represents a record nineteen-straight-month decline in mainline manufacturing capacity. Since it is mainline manufacturing which employs almost 95% of all manufacturing workers, it comes as no surprise that for the first time since the Great Depression the economy has gone more than three years without creating any jobs.

The jobs crisis is even worse than it appears. Here again statistical sleight-of-hand, this time by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), obscures economic reality. Based on data gathered employing the "net birth/death adjustment," BLS announced in April, 2004, that the long-awaited jobs recovery had finally arrived. Nonfarm payrolls had allegedly surged by a whopping 308,000 in March, 2004. The birth/death model uses business deaths to "impute" employment from business births. Thus, as more businesses fail, more new jobs are imputed to have materialized through business births. This improbable statistical artefact accounts for about half of the reported 308,000 March, 2004 payroll increase.

The birth/death model is based on statistics covering 1998-2002. This was a period of explosive telecom and dot.com startups, quite unlike today's flat economic landscape. Thus, two thirds of the 947,000 new jobs BLS "imputed" for March-May, 2004, were never actually counted by BLS and never reported by any firm.

BlS's household and establishment surveys tell a more sobering story. March employment by private industry actually fell by 175,000, and the number of self-employed workers declined by 288,000. Without the simultaneous increase of 439,000 government jobs, the March job announcement would have been a calamity. And both average weekly hours and total hours worked declined markedly, even as (according to the dubious birth/death findings) the work force increased. This is the first time in U.S. history that net job growth has been negative 26 months into a recovery.

The wage and salary picture has also set grim records. During the current recovery, wage and salary growth has actually been negative, at -0.6%, in contrast to the average increase of 7.2% characteristic of this point into each of the other eight post-War recoveries. In fact, median family income in the post-War period exhibits an ominous trend. From 1947 to 1967, real median family income rose by 75%. But since 1967, it has grown by only 30%.

Labor's losses have been capital's gain: since the peak of the last recovery, in the first quarter of 2001, corporate profits have risen 62.2%, compared to the average of 13.9% at the same point in the last eight recoveries. Never in American history has any recorded recovery had such a lopsided balance in the distribution of income gains between labor and capital.

Given the dismal investment, wage/salary and employment pictures, how has it been possible for consumption to have risen to 71% of GDP in the early nineties, from its prior post-War average of 66%? The answer is a growth rate of consumer debt never seen before in America. For the first time ever, in March 2001, overall debt levels (mortgage debt plus consumer debt, mainly credit card debt and car loans) rose above annual disposable income. And from 2001 to 2004 consumer debt rose from 101% to 116% of disposable income. In the first half of 2004, consumer borrowing has been at its highest ever. It has declined slightly in the meantime. So has consumer spending. Should Americans decide to significantly increase their saving and service debts, while lowering correspondingly their consumption expenditures, the global economy could experience a major disruption.

Up until very recently, consumers had stepped up their borrowing to compensate for slowing income growth. Thus, such growth as the U.S. has experienced in recent years has been almost entirely consumption- and debt-driven. More fundamentally, it has been bubble-driven, fueled principally by bubbles in home values and credit.

Since the collapse of stock market/hi-tech bubbles in 2001, the illusory "wealth effect" has been sustained, and consumer spending thereby encouraged, by another bubble, the enormous inflation of house prices. The biggest increase in household debt came from home mortgage debt, especially home mortgage refinancing. With mortgage rates low and home prices rising, households' home equity ballooned. Bloated home equity then provided rising collateral to underwrite still more borrowing.

What makes this especially problematic is that over the last ten years, the average family has suffered under large increases in health premiums, housing costs, tuition fees and child care costs. As a result, households' and individuals' margin of protection against insolvency has dramatically declined. Filings for personal bankruptcy are approaching a record high.

There are indications that these weaknesses and imbalances in the economy are reaching a critical mass. The mortgage refi boom has fizzled, and consumer spending is beginning to decline. Two years ago the Fed's quarterly Beige Book reported a disturbing shift in the composition of credit spending: more and more families are using their credit cards to finance spending on essentials, such as food and energy.

It is no exaggeration to say that both the U.S. economy and the global economy are hugely dependent on the American consumer's increasing willingness to spend more than (s)he makes. (Imported goods have been a rising proportion of all goods purchased here.) Thus, a decline in U.S. consumer spending portends further declines in investment, jobs and income. From January to July of 2004, consumer spending rose at an annual rate of 2.8%, down from 3.3% in 2003 and 3.1 % in 2002. For perspective, during the boom years 1999-2000, growth rates were 5.1% and 4.7%.

Spending on consumer durables is the most significant indicator of healthy growth, and the drastically lower spending in this area is cause for alarm: spending for consumer durables was down to $23.5 billion in the first seven months of this year, in contrast to $71 billion on 2003 and $58 billion in 2002.

Should consumer spending continue to decline, the economy faces the genuine likelihood of a severe recession. Of course not a single American politician addresses this issue.

What is required is a shift from bubble-, debt-, and consumption-driven growth to investment- and income-driven growth. This in turn necessitates a decline in Americas principal export, jobs. Domestic job growth, a higher minimum wage, tax cuts aimed predominantly at low- and middle-income families, a sharp reduction in defense spending and a redirection of these funds to long-neglected and pressing social needs such as health care reform, the provision of universal pre-school, and across-the-board repair and upgrading of America's deteriorated infrastructure of roads, highways,tunnels and bridges, all these should be at the forefront of a Democratic administration's agenda. The restoration of infrastructure is especially labor intensive, and would generate an enormous number of productive jobs. And as a national project spearheaded by government initiative, government would emerge as a major employer.

All this si entirely incompatible with the overwhelming neoliberal bent of even the most "liberal" political leaders. It was after all Bill Clinton who urinated on the grave of Franklin Roosevelt when he proclaimed "the end of welfare as we know it".

As unfashionable as it is to suggest such a thing at a conference of economists, the only hope for the world's majority seems to be the revival of the kinds of mass movements witnessed here in May of 1968, and throughout the world during the 1960s. And time may be short.

------------------------------

Alan Nasser is Professor emeritus of Political Economy and Philosophy at The Evergreen State College. His book, The “New Normal”: Persistent Austerity, Declining Democracy and the Globalization of Resistance will be published by Pluto Press in 2013. If you would like to be notified when the book is released, please send a request to nassera@evergreen.edu

Thomas Palley » Blog Archive » Explaining Stagnation Why it Matters

John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff clearly identify stagnation in their 2009 book The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences (HERE). They conclude with a section titled “Back to the real economy: the stagnation problem” and they write:

“It was the reality of economic stagnation beginning in the 1970s, as heterodox economists Ricardo Belliofiore and Joseph Halevi have recently emphasized, that led to the emergence of “the new financialized capitalist regime,” a kind of “paradoxical financial Keynesianiasm” whereby demand in the economy was stimulated primarily “thanks to asset-bubbles” (Foster and Magdoff, p.129).”

My own 2009 New America Foundation report, “America’s Exhausted Paradigm: Macroeconomic Causes of the Financial Crisis and Great Recession”, concluded (HERE):

“The bottom line is macroeconomic failure rooted in America’s flawed economic paradigm is the ultimate cause of the financial crisis and Great Recession…. Now, there is a grave danger that policymakers only focus on financial market reform and ignore reform of America’s flawed economic paradigm. In that event, though the economy may stabilize, it will likely be unable to escape the pull of economic stagnation. That is because stagnation is the logical next stage of the existing paradigm.”

That report became a core chapter in my 2012 book, From Financial Crisis to Stagnation, the blurb for which reads (HERE):

“The U.S. economy today is confronted with the prospect of extended stagnation. This book explores why…. Financial deregulation and the house price bubble kept the economy going by making ever more credit available. As the economy cannibalized itself by undercutting income distribution and accumulating debt, it needed larger speculative bubbles to grow. That process ended when the housing bubble burst. The earlier post–World War II economic model based on rising middle-class incomes has been dismantled, while the new neoliberal model has imploded. Absent a change of policy paradigm, the logical next step is stagnation. The political challenge we face now is how to achieve paradigm change.”

The big analytical difference between Foster and Magdoff and myself is that they see stagnation as inherent to capitalism whereas I see it as the product of neoliberal economic policy. Foster and Magdoff partake of the Baran-Sweezy tradition that recommends deeper socialist transformation. I use a structural Keynesian framework that recommends reconstructing the income and demand generation mechanism via policies that include rebuilding worker bargaining power, reforming globalization, and reining in corporations and financial markets.

Larry Summers’ story of serial bubbles delaying stagnation has substantial similarities with both accounts but he avoids blaming either capitalism or neoliberalism. That is hardly surprising as Summers has been a chief architect of the neoliberal system and remains committed to it, though he now wants to soften its impact. Instead, he appeals to the black box of “secular stagnation” as ultimate cause and suggests fiscal policies that would ameliorate the demand shortage problem. However, those policies would not remedy the root cause of stagnation as they leave the economic architecture unchanged.

Though Summers and Krugman are relative late-comers to the stagnation hypothesis, they have still done a great public service by drawing attention to it. Now that stagnation has been identified, the real debate can begin.

The questions are what caused stagnation and what must be done to restore shared prosperity? There is no guarantee we will answer those questions correctly (my prior is mainstream economists will continue their track record of getting it wrong). But it is absolutely certain we will not get the right answer if we do not ask the right question. So thank you Larry Summers and Paul Krugman for putting stagnation on the table. Let the debate begin.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 12:53 pm and is filed under Economics, U.S. Policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Summers makes the idea of secular stagnation mainstream

Larry Summers (“Why Stagnation May Prove To Be The New Normal,” The Financial Times, December 15, 2013)  suggested the current "lack of demand" is not anomaly but a feature of the current sociao-economic system.  He suggested that we have been in the throes of stagnation for a long while, but that has been obscured by years of serial asset price bubbles. His article produced great public debate and marked the point when the idea became mainstream. The debate began with Summers’ speech to the IMF’s Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fisher. Summers noted that the panic of 2008 was “an event that in the fall of 2008 and winter of 2009 … appeared, by most of the statistics—GDP, industrial production, employment, world trade, the stock market—worse than the fall of 1929 and the winter of 1930. …”

Tha means the major defeat for “stabilization policies” that were supposed to smooth the capitalist industrial cycle and abolish panics. And the problem preceeds the 2008 panic itself.

The highly misleading unemployment rate calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor notwithstanding, there has been a massive growth in long-term unemployment in the U.S. in the wake of the crisis, as shown by the declining percentage of the U.S. population actually working.

The current situation also refute the key tenet of neoclassical economy (which is pseudo-religious doctrine, so that only increase fanatic devotion of its well-paid adherents). Neoclassical economists insisted that since a “free market economy” naturally tends toward an equilibrium with full employment of both workers and machines, the economy should should quickly return to “full employment” after a recession. This is not the case. See also Secular Stagnation Lawrence H. Summers

There were several uncessful attempts to explaint his situation from neoclassical positions. In Secular Stagnation, Coalmines, Bubbles, and Larry Summers - NYTimes.com Paul Krugman  emphasized the liquidity trap – zero lower bound to interest rates which supposedly prevents spending from reaching a level sufficient for full employment.

Larry’s formulation of our current economic situation is the same as my own. Although he doesn’t use the words “liquidity trap”, he works from the understanding that we are an economy in which monetary policy is de facto constrained by the zero lower bound (even if you think central banks could be doing more), and that this corresponds to a situation in which the “natural” rate of interest – the rate at which desired savings and desired investment would be equal at full employment – is negative.

And as he also notes, in this situation the normal rules of economic policy don’t apply. As I like to put it, virtue becomes vice and prudence becomes folly. Saving hurts the economy – it even hurts investment, thanks to the paradox of thrift. Fixating on debt and deficits deepens the depression. And so on down the line.

This is the kind of environment in which Keynes’s hypothetical policy of burying currency in coalmines and letting the private sector dig it up – or my version, which involves faking a threat from nonexistent space aliens – becomes a good thing; spending is good, and while productive spending is best, unproductive spending is still better than nothing.

Larry also indirectly states an important corollary: this isn’t just true of public spending. Private spending that is wholly or partially wasteful is also a good thing, unless it somehow stores up trouble for the future. That last bit is an important qualification. But suppose that U.S. corporations, which are currently sitting on a huge hoard of cash, were somehow to become convinced that it would be a great idea to fit out all their employees as cyborgs, with Google Glass and smart wristwatches everywhere. And suppose that three years later they realized that there wasn’t really much payoff to all that spending. Nonetheless, the resulting investment boom would have given us several years of much higher employment, with no real waste, since the resources employed would otherwise have been idle.

OK, this is still mostly standard, although a lot of people hate, just hate, this kind of logic – they want economics to be a morality play, and they don’t care how many people have to suffer in the process.

But now comes the radical part of Larry’s presentation: his suggestion that this may not be a temporary state of affairs.

2. An economy that needs bubbles?

We now know that the economic expansion of 2003-2007 was driven by a bubble. You can say the same about the latter part of the 90s expansion; and you can in fact say the same about the later years of the Reagan expansion, which was driven at that point by runaway thrift institutions and a large bubble in commercial real estate.

So you might be tempted to say that monetary policy has consistently been too loose. After all, haven’t low interest rates been encouraging repeated bubbles?

But as Larry emphasizes, there’s a big problem with the claim that monetary policy has been too loose: where’s the inflation? Where has the overheated economy been visible?

So how can you reconcile repeated bubbles with an economy showing no sign of inflationary pressures? Summers’s answer is that we may be an economy that needs bubbles just to achieve something near full employment – that in the absence of bubbles the economy has a negative natural rate of interest. And this hasn’t just been true since the 2008 financial crisis; it has arguably been true, although perhaps with increasing severity, since the 1980s.

One way to quantify this is, I think, to look at household debt. Here’s the ratio of household debt to GDP since the 50s:

There was a sharp increase in the ratio after World War II, but from a low base, as families moved to the suburbs and all that. Then there were about 25 years of rough stability, from 1960 to around 1985. After that, however, household debt rose rapidly and inexorably, until the crisis struck.

So with all that household borrowing, you might have expected the period 1985-2007 to be one of strong inflationary pressure, high interest rates, or both. In fact, you see neither – this was the era of the Great Moderation, a time of low inflation and generally low interest rates. Without all that increase in household debt, interest rates would presumably have to have been considerably lower – maybe negative. In other words, you can argue that our economy has been trying to get into the liquidity trap for a number of years, and that it only avoided the trap for a while thanks to successive bubbles.

And if that’s how you see things, when looking forward you have to regard the liquidity trap not as an exceptional state of affairs but as the new normal.

3. Secular stagnation?

How did this happen? Larry explicitly invokes the notion of secular stagnation, associated in particular with Alvin Hansen (pdf).  He doesn’t say why this might be happening to us now, but it’s not hard to think of possible reasons.

Back in the day, Hansen stressed demographic factors: he thought slowing population growth would mean low investment demand. Then came the baby boom. But this time around the slowdown is here, and looks real.

Think of it this way: during the period 1960-85, when the U.S. economy seemed able to achieve full employment without bubbles, our labor force grew an average 2.1 percent annually. In part this reflected the maturing of the baby boomers, in part the move of women into the labor force.

This growth made sustaining investment fairly easy: the business of providing Americans with new houses, new offices, and so on easily absorbed a fairly high fraction of GDP.

Now look forward. The Census projects that the population aged 18 to 64 will grow at an annual rate of only 0.2 percent between 2015 and 2025. Unless labor force participation not only stops declining but starts rising rapidly again, this means a slower-growth economy, and thanks to the accelerator effect, lower investment demand.

By the way, in a Samuelson consumption-loan model, the natural rate of interest equals the rate of population growth. Reality is a lot more complicated than that, but I don’t think it’s foolish to guess that the decline in population growth has reduced the natural real rate of interest by something like an equal amount (and to note that Japan’s shrinking working-age population is probably a major factor in its secular stagnation.)

There may be other factors – a Bob Gordonesque decline in innovation, etc.. The point is that it’s not hard to think of reasons why the liquidity trap could be a lot more persistent than anyone currently wants to admit.

4. Destructive virtue

If you take a secular stagnation view seriously, it has some radical implications – and Larry goes there.

Currently, even policymakers who are willing to concede that the liquidity trap makes nonsense of conventional notions of policy prudence are busy preparing for the time when normality returns. This means that they are preoccupied with the idea that they must act now to head off future crises. Yet this crisis isn’t over – and as Larry says, “Most of what would be done under the aegis of preventing a future crisis would be counterproductive.”

He goes on to say that the officially respectable policy agenda involves “doing less with monetary policy than was done before and doing less with fiscal policy than was done before,” even though the economy remains deeply depressed. And he says, a bit fuzzily but bravely all the same, that even improved financial regulation is not necessarily a good thing – that it may discourage irresponsible lending and borrowing at a time when more spending of any kind is good for the economy.

Amazing stuff – and if we really are looking at secular stagnation, he’s right.

Of course, the underlying problem in all of this is simply that real interest rates are too high. But, you say, they’re negative – zero nominal rates minus at least some expected inflation. To which the answer is, so? If the market wants a strongly negative real interest rate, we’ll have persistent problems until we find a way to deliver such a rate.

One way to get there would be to reconstruct our whole monetary system – say, eliminate paper money and pay negative interest rates on deposits. Another way would be to take advantage of the next boom – whether it’s a bubble or driven by expansionary fiscal policy – to push inflation substantially higher, and keep it there. Or maybe, possibly, we could go the Krugman 1998/Abe 2013 route of pushing up inflation through the sheer power of self-fulfilling expectations.

Any such suggestions are, of course, met with outrage. How dare anyone suggest that virtuous individuals, people who are prudent and save for the future, face expropriation? How can you suggest steadily eroding their savings either through inflation or through negative interest rates? It’s tyranny!

But in a liquidity trap saving may be a personal virtue, but it’s a social vice. And in an economy facing secular stagnation, this isn’t just a temporary state of affairs, it’s the norm. Assuring people that they can get a positive rate of return on safe assets means promising them something the market doesn’t want to deliver – it’s like farm price supports, except for rentiers.

Oh, and one last point. If we’re going to have persistently negative real interest rates along with at least somewhat positive overall economic growth, the panic over public debt looks even more foolish than people like me have been saying: servicing the debt in the sense of stabilizing the ratio of debt to GDP has no cost, in fact negative cost.

I could go on, but by now I hope you’ve gotten the point. What Larry did at the IMF wasn’t just give an interesting speech. He laid down what amounts to a very radical manifesto. And I very much fear that he may be right.

Supplement 1: Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit (reprint)

Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit - The Baffler

David Graeber

A secret question hovers over us, a sense of disappointment, a broken promise we were given as children about what our adult world was supposed to be like. I am referring not to the standard false promises that children are always given (about how the world is fair, or how those who work hard shall be rewarded), but to a particular generational promise—given to those who were children in the fifties, sixties, seventies, or eighties—one that was never quite articulated as a promise but rather as a set of assumptions about what our adult world would be like. And since it was never quite promised, now that it has failed to come true, we’re left confused: indignant, but at the same time, embarrassed at our own indignation, ashamed we were ever so silly to believe our elders to begin with.

Where, in short, are the flying cars? Where are the force fields, tractor beams, teleportation pods, antigravity sleds, tricorders, immortality drugs, colonies on Mars, and all the other technological wonders any child growing up in the mid-to-late twentieth century assumed would exist by now? Even those inventions that seemed ready to emerge—like cloning or cryogenics—ended up betraying their lofty promises. What happened to them?

We are well informed of the wonders of computers, as if this is some sort of unanticipated compensation, but, in fact, we haven’t moved even computing to the point of progress that people in the fifties expected we’d have reached by now. We don’t have computers we can have an interesting conversation with, or robots that can walk our dogs or take our clothes to the Laundromat.

As someone who was eight years old at the time of the Apollo moon landing, I remember calculating that I would be thirty-nine in the magic year 2000 and wondering what the world would be like. Did I expect I would be living in such a world of wonders? Of course. Everyone did. Do I feel cheated now? It seemed unlikely that I’d live to see all the things I was reading about in science fiction, but it never occurred to me that I wouldn’t see any of them.

At the turn of the millennium, I was expecting an outpouring of reflections on why we had gotten the future of technology so wrong. Instead, just about all the authoritative voices—both Left and Right—began their reflections from the assumption that we do live in an unprecedented new technological utopia of one sort or another.

The common way of dealing with the uneasy sense that this might not be so is to brush it aside, to insist all the progress that could have happened has happened and to treat anything more as silly. “Oh, you mean all that Jetsons stuff?” I’m asked—as if to say, but that was just for children! Surely, as grown-ups, we understand The Jetsons offered as accurate a view of the future as The Flintstones offered of the Stone Age.

Surely, as grown-ups, we understand The Jetsons offered as accurate a view of the future as The Flintstones did of the Stone Age.

Even in the seventies and eighties, in fact, sober sources such as National Geographic and the Smithsonian were informing children of imminent space stations and expeditions to Mars. Creators of science fiction movies used to come up with concrete dates, often no more than a generation in the future, in which to place their futuristic fantasies. In 1968, Stanley Kubrick felt that a moviegoing audience would find it perfectly natural to assume that only thirty-three years later, in 2001, we would have commercial moon flights, city-like space stations, and computers with human personalities maintaining astronauts in suspended animation while traveling to Jupiter. Video telephony is just about the only new technology from that particular movie that has appeared—and it was technically possible when the movie was showing. 2001 can be seen as a curio, but what about Star Trek? The Star Trek mythos was set in the sixties, too, but the show kept getting revived, leaving audiences for Star Trek Voyager in, say, 2005, to try to figure out what to make of the fact that according to the logic of the program, the world was supposed to be recovering from fighting off the rule of genetically engineered supermen in the Eugenics Wars of the nineties.

By 1989, when the creators of Back to the Future II were dutifully placing flying cars and anti-gravity hoverboards in the hands of ordinary teenagers in the year 2015, it wasn’t clear if this was meant as a prediction or a joke.

The usual move in science fiction is to remain vague about the dates, so as to render “the future” a zone of pure fantasy, no different than Middle Earth or Narnia, or like Star Wars, “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” As a result, our science fiction future is, most often, not a future at all, but more like an alternative dimension, a dream-time, a technological Elsewhere, existing in days to come in the same sense that elves and dragon-slayers existed in the past—another screen for the displacement of moral dramas and mythic fantasies into the dead ends of consumer pleasure.

image

Might the cultural sensibility that came to be referred to as postmodernism best be seen as a prolonged meditation on all the technological changes that never happened? The question struck me as I watched one of the recent Star Wars movies. The movie was terrible, but I couldn’t help but feel impressed by the quality of the special effects. Recalling the clumsy special effects typical of fifties sci-fi films, I kept thinking how impressed a fifties audience would have been if they’d known what we could do by now—only to realize, “Actually, no. They wouldn’t be impressed at all, would they? They thought we’d be doing this kind of thing by now. Not just figuring out more sophisticated ways to simulate it.”

That last word—simulate—is key. The technologies that have advanced since the seventies are mainly either medical technologies or information technologies—largely, technologies of simulation. They are technologies of what Jean Baudrillard and Umberto Eco called the “hyper-real,” the ability to make imitations that are more realistic than originals. The postmodern sensibility, the feeling that we had somehow broken into an unprecedented new historical period in which we understood that there is nothing new; that grand historical narratives of progress and liberation were meaningless; that everything now was simulation, ironic repetition, fragmentation, and pastiche—all this makes sense in a technological environment in which the only breakthroughs were those that made it easier to create, transfer, and rearrange virtual projections of things that either already existed, or, we came to realize, never would. Surely, if we were vacationing in geodesic domes on Mars or toting about pocket-size nuclear fusion plants or telekinetic mind-reading devices no one would ever have been talking like this. The postmodern moment was a desperate way to take what could otherwise only be felt as a bitter disappointment and to dress it up as something epochal, exciting, and new.

In the earliest formulations, which largely came out of the Marxist tradition, a lot of this technological background was acknowledged. Fredric Jameson’s “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism” proposed the term “postmodernism” to refer to the cultural logic appropriate to a new, technological phase of capitalism, one that had been heralded by Marxist economist Ernest Mandel as early as 1972. Mandel had argued that humanity stood at the verge of a “third technological revolution,” as profound as the Agricultural or Industrial Revolution, in which computers, robots, new energy sources, and new information technologies would replace industrial labor—the “end of work” as it soon came to be called—reducing us all to designers and computer technicians coming up with crazy visions that cybernetic factories would produce.

End of work arguments were popular in the late seventies and early eighties as social thinkers pondered what would happen to the traditional working-class-led popular struggle once the working class no longer existed. (The answer: it would turn into identity politics.) Jameson thought of himself as exploring the forms of consciousness and historical sensibilities likely to emerge from this new age.

What happened, instead, is that the spread of information technologies and new ways of organizing transport—the containerization of shipping, for example—allowed those same industrial jobs to be outsourced to East Asia, Latin America, and other countries where the availability of cheap labor allowed manufacturers to employ much less technologically sophisticated production-line techniques than they would have been obliged to employ at home.

From the perspective of those living in Europe, North America, and Japan, the results did seem to be much as predicted. Smokestack industries did disappear; jobs came to be divided between a lower stratum of service workers and an upper stratum sitting in antiseptic bubbles playing with computers. But below it all lay an uneasy awareness that the postwork civilization was a giant fraud. Our carefully engineered high-tech sneakers were not being produced by intelligent cyborgs or self-replicating molecular nanotechnology; they were being made on the equivalent of old-fashioned Singer sewing machines, by the daughters of Mexican and Indonesian farmers who, as the result of WTO or NAFTA–sponsored trade deals, had been ousted from their ancestral lands. It was a guilty awareness that lay beneath the postmodern sensibility and its celebration of the endless play of images and surfaces.

image

Why did the projected explosion of technological growth everyone was expecting—the moon bases, the robot factories—fail to happen? There are two possibilities. Either our expectations about the pace of technological change were unrealistic (in which case, we need to know why so many intelligent people believed they were not) or our expectations were not unrealistic (in which case, we need to know what happened to derail so many credible ideas and prospects).

Most social analysts choose the first explanation and trace the problem to the Cold War space race. Why, these analysts wonder, did both the United States and the Soviet Union become so obsessed with the idea of manned space travel? It was never an efficient way to engage in scientific research. And it encouraged unrealistic ideas of what the human future would be like.

Could the answer be that both the United States and the Soviet Union had been, in the century before, societies of pioneers, one expanding across the Western frontier, the other across Siberia? Didn’t they share a commitment to the myth of a limitless, expansive future, of human colonization of vast empty spaces, that helped convince the leaders of both superpowers they had entered into a “space age” in which they were battling over control of the future itself? All sorts of myths were at play here, no doubt, but that proves nothing about the feasibility of the project.

Some of those science fiction fantasies (at this point we can’t know which ones) could have been brought into being. For earlier generations, many science fiction fantasies had been brought into being. Those who grew up at the turn of the century reading Jules Verne or H.G. Wells imagined the world of, say, 1960 with flying machines, rocket ships, submarines, radio, and television—and that was pretty much what they got. If it wasn’t unrealistic in 1900 to dream of men traveling to the moon, then why was it unrealistic in the sixties to dream of jet-packs and robot laundry-maids?

In fact, even as those dreams were being outlined, the material base for their achievement was beginning to be whittled away. There is reason to believe that even by the fifties and sixties, the pace of technological innovation was slowing down from the heady pace of the first half of the century. There was a last spate in the fifties when microwave ovens (1954), the Pill (1957), and lasers (1958) all appeared in rapid succession. But since then, technological advances have taken the form of clever new ways of combining existing technologies (as in the space race) and new ways of putting existing technologies to consumer use (the most famous example is television, invented in 1926, but mass produced only after the war.) Yet, in part because the space race gave everyone the impression that remarkable advances were happening, the popular impression during the sixties was that the pace of technological change was speeding up in terrifying, uncontrollable ways.

Alvin Toffler’s 1970 best seller Future Shock argued that almost all the social problems of the sixties could be traced back to the increasing pace of technological change. The endless outpouring of scientific breakthroughs transformed the grounds of daily existence, and left Americans without any clear idea of what normal life was. Just consider the family, where not just the Pill, but also the prospect of in vitro fertilization, test tube babies, and sperm and egg donation were about to make the idea of motherhood obsolete.

Humans were not psychologically prepared for the pace of change, Toffler wrote. He coined a term for the phenomenon: “accelerative thrust.” It had begun with the Industrial Revolution, but by roughly 1850, the effect had become unmistakable. Not only was everything around us changing, but most of it—human knowledge, the size of the population, industrial growth, energy use—was changing exponentially. The only solution, Toffler argued, was to begin some kind of control over the process, to create institutions that would assess emerging technologies and their likely effects, to ban technologies likely to be too socially disruptive, and to guide development in the direction of social harmony.

While many of the historical trends Toffler describes are accurate, the book appeared when most of these exponential trends halted. It was right around 1970 when the increase in the number of scientific papers published in the world—a figure that had doubled every fifteen years since, roughly, 1685—began leveling off. The same was true of books and patents.

Toffler’s use of acceleration was particularly unfortunate. For most of human history, the top speed at which human beings could travel had been around 25 miles per hour. By 1900 it had increased to 100 miles per hour, and for the next seventy years it did seem to be increasing exponentially. By the time Toffler was writing, in 1970, the record for the fastest speed at which any human had traveled stood at roughly 25,000 mph, achieved by the crew of Apollo 10 in 1969, just one year before. At such an exponential rate, it must have seemed reasonable to assume that within a matter of decades, humanity would be exploring other solar systems.

Since 1970, no further increase has occurred. The record for the fastest a human has ever traveled remains with the crew of Apollo 10. True, the commercial airliner Concorde, which first flew in 1969, reached a maximum speed of 1,400 mph. And the Soviet Tupolev Tu-144, which flew first, reached an even faster speed of 1,553 mph. But those speeds not only have failed to increase; they have decreased since the Tupolev Tu-144 was cancelled and the Concorde was abandoned.

None of this stopped Toffler’s own career. He kept retooling his analysis to come up with new spectacular pronouncements. In 1980, he produced The Third Wave, its argument lifted from Ernest Mandel’s “third technological revolution”—except that while Mandel thought these changes would spell the end of capitalism, Toffler assumed capitalism was eternal. By 1990, Toffler was the personal intellectual guru to Republican congressman Newt Gingrich, who claimed that his 1994 “Contract With America” was inspired, in part, by the understanding that the United States needed to move from an antiquated, materialist, industrial mind-set to a new, free-market, information age, Third Wave civilization.

There are all sorts of ironies in this connection. One of Toffler’s greatest achievements was inspiring the government to create an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). One of Gingrich’s first acts on winning control of the House of Representatives in 1995 was defunding the OTA as an example of useless government extravagance. Still, there’s no contradiction here. By this time, Toffler had long since given up on influencing policy by appealing to the general public; he was making a living largely by giving seminars to CEOs and corporate think tanks. His insights had been privatized.

Gingrich liked to call himself a “conservative futurologist.” This, too, might seem oxymoronic; but, in fact, Toffler’s own conception of futurology was never progressive. Progress was always presented as a problem that needed to be solved.

Toffler might best be seen as a lightweight version of the nineteenth-century social theorist Auguste Comte, who believed that he was standing on the brink of a new age—in his case, the Industrial Age—driven by the inexorable progress of technology, and that the social cataclysms of his times were caused by the social system not adjusting. The older feudal order had developed Catholic theology, a way of thinking about man’s place in the cosmos perfectly suited to the social system of the time, as well as an institutional structure, the Church, that conveyed and enforced such ideas in a way that could give everyone a sense of meaning and belonging. The Industrial Age had developed its own system of ideas—science—but scientists had not succeeded in creating anything like the Catholic Church. Comte concluded that we needed to develop a new science, which he dubbed “sociology,” and said that sociologists should play the role of priests in a new Religion of Society that would inspire everyone with a love of order, community, work discipline, and family values. Toffler was less ambitious; his futurologists were not supposed to play the role of priests.

Gingrich had a second guru, a libertarian theologian named George Gilder, and Gilder, like Toffler, was obsessed with technology and social change. In an odd way, Gilder was more optimistic. Embracing a radical version of Mandel’s Third Wave argument, he insisted that what we were seeing with the rise of computers was an “overthrow of matter.” The old, materialist Industrial Society, where value came from physical labor, was giving way to an Information Age where value emerges directly from the minds of entrepreneurs, just as the world had originally appeared ex nihilo from the mind of God, just as money, in a proper supply-side economy, emerged ex nihilo from the Federal Reserve and into the hands of value-creating capitalists. Supply-side economic policies, Gilder concluded, would ensure that investment would continue to steer away from old government boondoggles like the space program and toward more productive information and medical technologies.

But if there was a conscious, or semi-conscious, move away from investment in research that might lead to better rockets and robots, and toward research that would lead to such things as laser printers and CAT scans, it had begun well before Toffler’s Future Shock (1970) and Gilder’s Wealth and Poverty (1981). What their success shows is that the issues they raised—that existing patterns of technological development would lead to social upheaval, and that we needed to guide technological development in directions that did not challenge existing structures of authority—echoed in the corridors of power. Statesmen and captains of industry had been thinking about such questions for some time.

image

Industrial capitalism has fostered an extremely rapid rate of scientific advance and technological innovation—one with no parallel in previous human history. Even capitalism’s greatest detractors, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, celebrated its unleashing of the “productive forces.” Marx and Engels also believed that capitalism’s continual need to revolutionize the means of industrial production would be its undoing. Marx argued that, for certain technical reasons, value—and therefore profits—can be extracted only from human labor. Competition forces factory owners to mechanize production, to reduce labor costs, but while this is to the short-term advantage of the firm, mechanization’s effect is to drive down the general rate of profit.

For 150 years, economists have debated whether all this is true. But if it is true, then the decision by industrialists not to pour research funds into the invention of the robot factories that everyone was anticipating in the sixties, and instead to relocate their factories to labor-intensive, low-tech facilities in China or the Global South makes a great deal of sense.

As I’ve noted, there’s reason to believe the pace of technological innovation in productive processes—the factories themselves—began to slow in the fifties and sixties, but the side effects of America’s rivalry with the Soviet Union made innovation appear to accelerate. There was the awesome space race, alongside frenetic efforts by U.S. industrial planners to apply existing technologies to consumer purposes, to create an optimistic sense of burgeoning prosperity and guaranteed progress that would undercut the appeal of working-class politics.

These moves were reactions to initiatives from the Soviet Union. But this part of the history is difficult for Americans to remember, because at the end of the Cold War, the popular image of the Soviet Union switched from terrifyingly bold rival to pathetic basket case—the exemplar of a society that could not work. Back in the fifties, in fact, many United States planners suspected the Soviet system worked better. Certainly, they recalled the fact that in the thirties, while the United States had been mired in depression, the Soviet Union had maintained almost unprecedented economic growth rates of 10 percent to 12 percent a year—an achievement quickly followed by the production of tank armies that defeated Nazi Germany, then by the launching of Sputnik in 1957, then by the first manned spacecraft, the Vostok, in 1961.

It’s often said the Apollo moon landing was the greatest historical achievement of Soviet communism. Surely, the United States would never have contemplated such a feat had it not been for the cosmic ambitions of the Soviet Politburo. We are used to thinking of the Politburo as a group of unimaginative gray bureaucrats, but they were bureaucrats who dared to dream astounding dreams. The dream of world revolution was only the first. It’s also true that most of them—changing the course of mighty rivers, this sort of thing—either turned out to be ecologically and socially disastrous, or, like Joseph Stalin’s one-hundred-story Palace of the Soviets or a twenty-story statue of Vladimir Lenin, never got off the ground.

After the initial successes of the Soviet space program, few of these schemes were realized, but the leadership never ceased coming up with new ones. Even in the eighties, when the United States was attempting its own last, grandiose scheme, Star Wars, the Soviets were planning to transform the world through creative uses of technology. Few outside of Russia remember most of these projects, but great resources were devoted to them. It’s also worth noting that unlike the Star Wars project, which was designed to sink the Soviet Union, most were not military in nature: as, for instance, the attempt to solve the world hunger problem by harvesting lakes and oceans with an edible bacteria called spirulina, or to solve the world energy problem by launching hundreds of gigantic solar-power platforms into orbit and beaming the electricity back to earth.

The American victory in the space race meant that, after 1968, U.S. planners no longer took the competition seriously. As a result, the mythology of the final frontier was maintained, even as the direction of research and development shifted away from anything that might lead to the creation of Mars bases and robot factories.

The standard line is that all this was a result of the triumph of the market. The Apollo program was a Big Government project, Soviet-inspired in the sense that it required a national effort coordinated by government bureaucracies. As soon as the Soviet threat drew safely out of the picture, though, capitalism was free to revert to lines of technological development more in accord with its normal, decentralized, free-market imperatives—such as privately funded research into marketable products like personal computers. This is the line that men like Toffler and Gilder took in the late seventies and early eighties.

In fact, the United States never did abandon gigantic, government-controlled schemes of technological development. Mainly, they just shifted to military research—and not just to Soviet-scale schemes like Star Wars, but to weapons projects, research in communications and surveillance technologies, and similar security-related concerns. To some degree this had always been true: the billions poured into missile research had always dwarfed the sums allocated to the space program. Yet by the seventies, even basic research came to be conducted following military priorities. One reason we don’t have robot factories is because roughly 95 percent of robotics research funding has been channeled through the Pentagon, which is more interested in developing unmanned drones than in automating paper mills.

A case could be made that even the shift to research and development on information technologies and medicine was not so much a reorientation toward market-driven consumer imperatives, but part of an all-out effort to follow the technological humbling of the Soviet Union with total victory in the global class war—seen simultaneously as the imposition of absolute U.S. military dominance overseas, and, at home, the utter rout of social movements.

For the technologies that did emerge proved most conducive to surveillance, work discipline, and social control. Computers have opened up certain spaces of freedom, as we’re constantly reminded, but instead of leading to the workless utopia Abbie Hoffman imagined, they have been employed in such a way as to produce the opposite effect. They have enabled a financialization of capital that has driven workers desperately into debt, and, at the same time, provided the means by which employers have created “flexible” work regimes that have both destroyed traditional job security and increased working hours for almost everyone. Along with the export of factory jobs, the new work regime has routed the union movement and destroyed any possibility of effective working-class politics.

Meanwhile, despite unprecedented investment in research on medicine and life sciences, we await cures for cancer and the common cold, and the most dramatic medical breakthroughs we have seen have taken the form of drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft, or Ritalin—tailor-made to ensure that the new work demands don’t drive us completely, dysfunctionally crazy.

With results like these, what will the epitaph for neoliberalism look like? I think historians will conclude it was a form of capitalism that systematically prioritized political imperatives over economic ones. Given a choice between a course of action that would make capitalism seem the only possible economic system, and one that would transform capitalism into a viable, long-term economic system, neoliberalism chooses the former every time. There is every reason to believe that destroying job security while increasing working hours does not create a more productive (let alone more innovative or loyal) workforce. Probably, in economic terms, the result is negative—an impression confirmed by lower growth rates in just about all parts of the world in the eighties and nineties.

But the neoliberal choice has been effective in depoliticizing labor and overdetermining the future. Economically, the growth of armies, police, and private security services amounts to dead weight. It’s possible, in fact, that the very dead weight of the apparatus created to ensure the ideological victory of capitalism will sink it. But it’s also easy to see how choking off any sense of an inevitable, redemptive future that could be different from our world is a crucial part of the neoliberal project.

At this point all the pieces would seem to be falling neatly into place. By the sixties, conservative political forces were growing skittish about the socially disruptive effects of technological progress, and employers were beginning to worry about the economic impact of mechanization. The fading Soviet threat allowed for a reallocation of resources in directions seen as less challenging to social and economic arrangements, or indeed directions that could support a campaign of reversing the gains of progressive social movements and achieving a decisive victory in what U.S. elites saw as a global class war. The change of priorities was introduced as a withdrawal of big-government projects and a return to the market, but in fact the change shifted government-directed research away from programs like NASA or alternative energy sources and toward military, information, and medical technologies.

Of course this doesn’t explain everything. Above all, it does not explain why, even in those areas that have become the focus of well-funded research projects, we have not seen anything like the kind of advances anticipated fifty years ago. If 95 percent of robotics research has been funded by the military, then where are the Klaatu-style killer robots shooting death rays from their eyes?

Obviously, there have been advances in military technology in recent decades. One of the reasons we all survived the Cold War is that while nuclear bombs might have worked as advertised, their delivery systems did not; intercontinental ballistic missiles weren’t capable of striking cities, let alone specific targets inside cities, and this fact meant there was little point in launching a nuclear first strike unless you intended to destroy the world.

Contemporary cruise missiles are accurate by comparison. Still, precision weapons never do seem capable of assassinating specific individuals (Saddam, Osama, Qaddafi), even when hundreds are dropped. And ray guns have not materialized—surely not for lack of trying. We can assume the Pentagon has spent billions on death ray research, but the closest they’ve come so far are lasers that might, if aimed correctly, blind an enemy gunner looking directly at the beam. Aside from being unsporting, this is pathetic: lasers are a fifties technology. Phasers that can be set to stun do not appear to be on the drawing boards; and when it comes to infantry combat, the preferred weapon almost everywhere remains the AK-47, a Soviet design named for the year it was introduced: 1947.

image

The Internet is a remarkable innovation, but all we are talking about is a super-fast and globally accessible combination of library, post office, and mail-order catalogue. Had the Internet been described to a science fiction aficionado in the fifties and sixties and touted as the most dramatic technological achievement since his time, his reaction would have been disappointment. Fifty years and this is the best our scientists managed to come up with? We expected computers that would think!

Overall, levels of research funding have increased dramatically since the seventies. Admittedly, the proportion of that funding that comes from the corporate sector has increased most dramatically, to the point that private enterprise is now funding twice as much research as the government, but the increase is so large that the total amount of government research funding, in real-dollar terms, is much higher than it was in the sixties. “Basic,” “curiosity-driven,” or “blue skies” research—the kind that is not driven by the prospect of any immediate practical application, and that is most likely to lead to unexpected breakthroughs—occupies an ever smaller proportion of the total, though so much money is being thrown around nowadays that overall levels of basic research funding have increased.

Yet most observers agree that the results have been paltry. Certainly we no longer see anything like the continual stream of conceptual revolutions—genetic inheritance, relativity, psychoanalysis, quantum mechanics—that people had grown used to, and even expected, a hundred years before. Why?

Part of the answer has to do with the concentration of resources on a handful of gigantic projects: “big science,” as it has come to be called. The Human Genome Project is often held out as an example. After spending almost three billion dollars and employing thousands of scientists and staff in five different countries, it has mainly served to establish that there isn’t very much to be learned from sequencing genes that’s of much use to anyone else. Even more, the hype and political investment surrounding such projects demonstrate the degree to which even basic research now seems to be driven by political, administrative, and marketing imperatives that make it unlikely anything revolutionary will happen.

Here, our fascination with the mythic origins of Silicon Valley and the Internet has blinded us to what’s really going on. It has allowed us to imagine that research and development is now driven, primarily, by small teams of plucky entrepreneurs, or the sort of decentralized cooperation that creates open-source software. This is not so, even though such research teams are most likely to produce results. Research and development is still driven by giant bureaucratic projects.

What has changed is the bureaucratic culture. The increasing interpenetration of government, university, and private firms has led everyone to adopt the language, sensibilities, and organizational forms that originated in the corporate world. Although this might have helped in creating marketable products, since that is what corporate bureaucracies are designed to do, in terms of fostering original research, the results have been catastrophic.

My own knowledge comes from universities, both in the United States and Britain. In both countries, the last thirty years have seen a veritable explosion of the proportion of working hours spent on administrative tasks at the expense of pretty much everything else. In my own university, for instance, we have more administrators than faculty members, and the faculty members, too, are expected to spend at least as much time on administration as on teaching and research combined. The same is true, more or less, at universities worldwide.

The growth of administrative work has directly resulted from introducing corporate management techniques. Invariably, these are justified as ways of increasing efficiency and introducing competition at every level. What they end up meaning in practice is that everyone winds up spending most of their time trying to sell things: grant proposals; book proposals; assessments of students’ jobs and grant applications; assessments of our colleagues; prospectuses for new interdisciplinary majors; institutes; conference workshops; universities themselves (which have now become brands to be marketed to prospective students or contributors); and so on.

As marketing overwhelms university life, it generates documents about fostering imagination and creativity that might just as well have been designed to strangle imagination and creativity in the cradle. No major new works of social theory have emerged in the United States in the last thirty years. We have been reduced to the equivalent of medieval scholastics, writing endless annotations of French theory from the seventies, despite the guilty awareness that if new incarnations of Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, or Pierre Bourdieu were to appear in the academy today, we would deny them tenure.

There was a time when academia was society’s refuge for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical. No longer. It is now the domain of professional self-marketers. As a result, in one of the most bizarre fits of social self-destructiveness in history, we seem to have decided we have no place for our eccentric, brilliant, and impractical citizens. Most languish in their mothers’ basements, at best making the occasional, acute intervention on the Internet.

image

If all this is true in the social sciences, where research is still carried out with minimal overhead largely by individuals, one can imagine how much worse it is for astrophysicists. And, indeed, one astrophysicist, Jonathan Katz, has recently warned students pondering a career in the sciences. Even if you do emerge from the usual decade-long period languishing as someone else’s flunky, he says, you can expect your best ideas to be stymied at every point:

You will spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors, you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. . . . It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal, because they have not yet been proved to work.

That pretty much answers the question of why we don’t have teleportation devices or antigravity shoes. Common sense suggests that if you want to maximize scientific creativity, you find some bright people, give them the resources they need to pursue whatever idea comes into their heads, and then leave them alone. Most will turn up nothing, but one or two may well discover something. But if you want to minimize the possibility of unexpected breakthroughs, tell those same people they will receive no resources at all unless they spend the bulk of their time competing against each other to convince you they know in advance what they are going to discover.

In the natural sciences, to the tyranny of managerialism we can add the privatization of research results. As the British economist David Harvie has reminded us, “open source” research is not new. Scholarly research has always been open source, in the sense that scholars share materials and results. There is competition, certainly, but it is “convivial.” This is no longer true of scientists working in the corporate sector, where findings are jealously guarded, but the spread of the corporate ethos within the academy and research institutes themselves has caused even publicly funded scholars to treat their findings as personal property. Academic publishers ensure that findings that are published are increasingly difficult to access, further enclosing the intellectual commons. As a result, convivial, open-source competition turns into something much more like classic market competition.

There are many forms of privatization, up to and including the simple buying up and suppression of inconvenient discoveries by large corporations fearful of their economic effects. (We cannot know how many synthetic fuel formulae have been bought up and placed in the vaults of oil companies, but it’s hard to imagine nothing like this happens.) More subtle is the way the managerial ethos discourages everything adventurous or quirky, especially if there is no prospect of immediate results. Oddly, the Internet can be part of the problem here. As Neal Stephenson put it:

Most people who work in corporations or academia have witnessed something like the following: A number of engineers are sitting together in a room, bouncing ideas off each other. Out of the discussion emerges a new concept that seems promising. Then some laptop-wielding person in the corner, having performed a quick Google search, announces that this “new” idea is, in fact, an old one; it—or at least something vaguely similar—has already been tried. Either it failed, or it succeeded. If it failed, then no manager who wants to keep his or her job will approve spending money trying to revive it. If it succeeded, then it’s patented and entry to the market is presumed to be unattainable, since the first people who thought of it will have “first-mover advantage” and will have created “barriers to entry.” The number of seemingly promising ideas that have been crushed in this way must number in the millions.

And so a timid, bureaucratic spirit suffuses every aspect of cultural life. It comes festooned in a language of creativity, initiative, and entrepreneurialism. But the language is meaningless. Those thinkers most likely to make a conceptual breakthrough are the least likely to receive funding, and, if breakthroughs occur, they are not likely to find anyone willing to follow up on their most daring implications.

Giovanni Arrighi has noted that after the South Sea Bubble, British capitalism largely abandoned the corporate form. By the time of the Industrial Revolution, Britain had instead come to rely on a combination of high finance and small family firms—a pattern that held throughout the next century, the period of maximum scientific and technological innovation. (Britain at that time was also notorious for being just as generous to its oddballs and eccentrics as contemporary America is intolerant. A common expedient was to allow them to become rural vicars, who, predictably, became one of the main sources for amateur scientific discoveries.)

Contemporary, bureaucratic corporate capitalism was a creation not of Britain, but of the United States and Germany, the two rival powers that spent the first half of the twentieth century fighting two bloody wars over who would replace Britain as a dominant world power—wars that culminated, appropriately enough, in government-sponsored scientific programs to see who would be the first to discover the atom bomb. It is significant, then, that our current technological stagnation seems to have begun after 1945, when the United States replaced Britain as organizer of the world economy.

Americans do not like to think of themselves as a nation of bureaucrats—quite the opposite—but the moment we stop imagining bureaucracy as a phenomenon limited to government offices, it becomes obvious that this is precisely what we have become. The final victory over the Soviet Union did not lead to the domination of the market, but, in fact, cemented the dominance of conservative managerial elites, corporate bureaucrats who use the pretext of short-term, competitive, bottom-line thinking to squelch anything likely to have revolutionary implications of any kind.

image

If we do not notice that we live in a bureaucratic society, that is because bureaucratic norms and practices have become so all-pervasive that we cannot see them, or, worse, cannot imagine doing things any other way.

Computers have played a crucial role in this narrowing of our social imaginations. Just as the invention of new forms of industrial automation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had the paradoxical effect of turning more and more of the world’s population into full-time industrial workers, so has all the software designed to save us from administrative responsibilities turned us into part- or full-time administrators. In the same way that university professors seem to feel it is inevitable they will spend more of their time managing grants, so affluent housewives simply accept that they will spend weeks every year filling out forty-page online forms to get their children into grade schools. We all spend increasing amounts of time punching passwords into our phones to manage bank and credit accounts and learning how to perform jobs once performed by travel agents, brokers, and accountants.

Someone once figured out that the average American will spend a cumulative six months of life waiting for traffic lights to change. I don’t know if similar figures are available for how long it takes to fill out forms, but it must be at least as long. No population in the history of the world has spent nearly so much time engaged in paperwork.

In this final, stultifying stage of capitalism, we are moving from poetic technologies to bureaucratic technologies. By poetic technologies I refer to the use of rational and technical means to bring wild fantasies to reality. Poetic technologies, so understood, are as old as civilization. Lewis Mumford noted that the first complex machines were made of people. Egyptian pharaohs were able to build the pyramids only because of their mastery of administrative procedures, which allowed them to develop production-line techniques, dividing up complex tasks into dozens of simple operations and assigning each to one team of workmen—even though they lacked mechanical technology more complex than the inclined plane and lever. Administrative oversight turned armies of peasant farmers into the cogs of a vast machine. Much later, after cogs had been invented, the design of complex machinery elaborated principles originally developed to organize people.

Yet we have seen those machines—whether their moving parts are arms and torsos or pistons, wheels, and springs—being put to work to realize impossible fantasies: cathedrals, moon shots, transcontinental railways. Certainly, poetic technologies had something terrible about them; the poetry is likely to be as much of dark satanic mills as of grace or liberation. But the rational, administrative techniques were always in service to some fantastic end.

From this perspective, all those mad Soviet plans—even if never realized—marked the climax of poetic technologies. What we have now is the reverse. It’s not that vision, creativity, and mad fantasies are no longer encouraged, but that most remain free-floating; there’s no longer even the pretense that they could ever take form or flesh. The greatest and most powerful nation that has ever existed has spent the last decades telling its citizens they can no longer contemplate fantastic collective enterprises, even if—as the environmental crisis demands— the fate of the earth depends on it.

What are the political implications of all this? First of all, we need to rethink some of our most basic assumptions about the nature of capitalism. One is that capitalism is identical with the market, and that both therefore are inimical to bureaucracy, which is supposed to be a creature of the state.

The second assumption is that capitalism is in its nature technologically progressive. It would seem that Marx and Engels, in their giddy enthusiasm for the industrial revolutions of their day, were wrong about this. Or, to be more precise: they were right to insist that the mechanization of industrial production would destroy capitalism; they were wrong to predict that market competition would compel factory owners to mechanize anyway. If it didn’t happen, that is because market competition is not, in fact, as essential to the nature of capitalism as they had assumed. If nothing else, the current form of capitalism, where much of the competition seems to take the form of internal marketing within the bureaucratic structures of large semi-monopolistic enterprises, would come as a complete surprise to them.

Defenders of capitalism make three broad historical claims: first, that it has fostered rapid scientific and technological growth; second, that however much it may throw enormous wealth to a small minority, it does so in such a way as to increase overall prosperity; third, that in doing so, it creates a more secure and democratic world for everyone. It is clear that capitalism is not doing any of these things any longer. In fact, many of its defenders are retreating from claiming that it is a good system and instead falling back on the claim that it is the only possible system—or, at least, the only possible system for a complex, technologically sophisticated society such as our own.

But how could anyone argue that current economic arrangements are also the only ones that will ever be viable under any possible future technological society? The argument is absurd. How could anyone know?

Granted, there are people who take that position—on both ends of the political spectrum. As an anthropologist and anarchist, I encounter anticivilizational types who insist not only that current industrial technology leads only to capitalist-style oppression, but that this must necessarily be true of any future technology as well, and therefore that human liberation can be achieved only by returning to the Stone Age. Most of us are not technological determinists.

But claims for the inevitability of capitalism have to be based on a kind of technological determinism. And for that very reason, if the aim of neoliberal capitalism is to create a world in which no one believes any other economic system could work, then it needs to suppress not just any idea of an inevitable redemptive future, but any radically different technological future. Yet there’s a contradiction. Defenders of capitalism cannot mean to convince us that technological change has ended—since that would mean capitalism is not progressive. No, they mean to convince us that technological progress is indeed continuing, that we do live in a world of wonders, but that those wonders take the form of modest improvements (the latest iPhone!), rumors of inventions about to happen (“I hear they are going to have flying cars pretty soon”), complex ways of juggling information and imagery, and still more complex platforms for filling out of forms.

I do not mean to suggest that neoliberal capitalism—or any other system—can be successful in this regard. First, there’s the problem of trying to convince the world you are leading the way in technological progress when you are holding it back. The United States, with its decaying infrastructure, paralysis in the face of global warming, and symbolically devastating abandonment of its manned space program just as China accelerates its own, is doing a particularly bad public relations job. Second, the pace of change can’t be held back forever. Breakthroughs will happen; inconvenient discoveries cannot be permanently suppressed. Other, less bureaucratized parts of the world—or at least, parts of the world with bureaucracies that are not so hostile to creative thinking—will slowly but inevitably attain the resources required to pick up where the United States and its allies have left off. The Internet does provide opportunities for collaboration and dissemination that may help break us through the wall as well. Where will the breakthrough come? We can’t know. Maybe 3D printing will do what the robot factories were supposed to. Or maybe it will be something else. But it will happen.

About one conclusion we can feel especially confident: it will not happen within the framework of contemporary corporate capitalism—or any form of capitalism. To begin setting up domes on Mars, let alone to develop the means to figure out if there are alien civilizations to contact, we’re going to have to figure out a different economic system. Must the new system take the form of some massive new bureaucracy? Why do we assume it must? Only by breaking up existing bureaucratic structures can we begin. And if we’re going to invent robots that will do our laundry and tidy up the kitchen, then we’re going to have to make sure that whatever replaces capitalism is based on a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power—one that no longer contains either the super-rich or the desperately poor willing to do their housework. Only then will technology begin to be marshaled toward human needs. And this is the best reason to break free of the dead hand of the hedge fund managers and the CEOs—to free our fantasies from the screens in which such men have imprisoned them, to let our imaginations once again become a material force in human history.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

2015 2014 2013 2012

[Jun 16, 2021] FBI Operatives Likely 'Unindicted Co-Conspirators', Organizers Of Capitol Riot- Report

Comments for this article are pretty instructive about the particular strata of US population mindset right now. Reminds the mood of dissidents in the USSR.
Jun 16, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Tucker Carlson dropped several bombshells on his show Tuesday night, chief among them was from a Revolver News report that the FBI was likely involved in organizing the Jan. 6 Capitol 'insurrection,' and were similarly involved in the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchin Whitmer .

" Why are there so many factual matters that we don't understand about that day? " asked Carlson.

" Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the US capitol on January 6th? What could possibly be the reason for that - even as they call for more openness... they could release those tapes today, but they're not. Why?"

Carlson notes that Revolver News has dissected court filings surrounding the Capitol riot, suggests that unindicted co-conspirators in the case are likely to have been federal operatives.

We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6 -- and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those indicted. In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called "conspiracy" serving as the basis for charging those indicted.

The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.

Key segment from Tucker:

"We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers that were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one that killed Ashli Babbitt. According to the government's own court filing, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot - sometimes in violent ways . We know that because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them - and many are still in solitary confinement tonight. But s trangely, some of the key people who participated on Jan. 6 have not been charged ."

Look at the documents , the government calls those people 'unindicted co-conspirators.' What does that mean? Well it means that in potentially every case they were FBI operatives ... in the Capitol, on January 6th."

"For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents identify only as "person two." According to those documents, person two stayed in the same hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell - an 'insurrectionist.' A man alleged to be a member of the group "The Oathkeepers." Person two also "stormed the barricades" at the Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell. The government's indictments further indicate that Caldwell - who by the way is a 65-year-old man... was led to believe there would be a "quick reaction force" also participating on January 6th. That quick reaction force Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called "Person 3," who had a hotel room and an accomplice with them . But wait. Here's the interesting thing. Person 2 and person 3 were organizers of the riot . The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th according to government documents. And those two are not alone. In all, Revolver news reported there are "upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities and in some cases much, much more severe activities - as those named alongside them in the indictments."

Watch:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1404985019420987398&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ffbi-operatives-were-unindicted-co-conspirators-organizers-capitol-riot-report&sessionId=ebe7b0399e890bf12ec9d97d458e9766a17255c1&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

Revolver , meanwhile, has important questions about January 6th

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has demanded an explanation from FBI Director Christopher Wray:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1405186330284412934&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ffbi-operatives-were-unindicted-co-conspirators-organizers-capitol-riot-report&sessionId=ebe7b0399e890bf12ec9d97d458e9766a17255c1&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

More:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1404987282273181696&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ffbi-operatives-were-unindicted-co-conspirators-organizers-capitol-riot-report&sessionId=ebe7b0399e890bf12ec9d97d458e9766a17255c1&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

We recommend you read the entire Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved int he "Whitmer Kidnapping Plot" were undercover agents and federal informants .


_Rorschach 7 hours ago

Just remember folks

a Klan meeting is always 33 FBI agents

and 2 ACTUAL white supremacists

Dragonlord 7 hours ago

No CIA? I am disappointed.

_Rorschach 7 hours ago (Edited)

Glowies are never at the meetings

theyre busy planting bombs for the false flag afterwards

Misesmissesme 6 hours ago

90% of "terrorists" would never commit acts of terror if the US Guv wasn't coercing them to commit said acts. The wrong people are in jail.

Wonder who in government started the ball rolling on 9/11 before it got away from them?

Sedaeng PREMIUM 6 hours ago

it never got away from them! They directed through and afterwards... Patriot act just 'happened' to be on standby just in case? ha!

Not Your Father's ZH 6 hours ago (Edited)

Amid this chronic Machiavellian conniving, here are creatures who know how to act right:

Goldendoodle Harley saved fawn in lake and then loved on her keeping her safe

"Civilization is a stream with banks. The stream is sometimes filled with blood from people killing, stealing, shouting and doing things historians usually record; while on the banks, unnoticed, people build homes, make love, raise children, sing songs, write poetry and even whittle statues. The story of civilization is the story of what happened on the banks. Historians are pessimists because they ignore the banks of the river." ~ Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization"

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss , the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Everything human is pathetic. The secret source of humor itself is not joy, but sorrow. There is no humor in Heaven." ― Mark Twain

thomas sewell 6 hours ago

everything in the USA is bull sheet. its all polluted with mind fook.

the last 1+ year has gone beyond any psycho drama i could ever imagine.

krda 5 hours ago

Didn't Brennan issue the 9/11 hijackers' visas?

zedwork 1 hour ago

Yes, but no planes. That would have been way too risky when you can just add them into the live feed later using CGI.

Bob Lidd 1 hour ago

You mean like what happen in the 1993 WTC bombing.....??

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1993-10-28-1993301015-story.html

Misesmissesme 59 minutes ago

How there hasn't been a day of reckoning yet is beyond me.

SexyJulian 6 hours ago

And stacks of bricks.

E5 5 hours ago

The FBI does not have the right to commit a crime. They chose to run an operation they should disavow all agents involved and they know it. Arrest them.

Not Your Father's ZH 4 hours ago

Breaking: Court Documents Confirm FBI Planned & Executed Jan. 6th 'Insurrection'

vova_3.2018 3 hours ago remove link

The FBI does not have the right to commit a crime. ...

Like 9/11, the "Capitol Hill Riot", was a false-flag operation staged by the Deep-State and falsely attributed to a group the DS sought to target.

BaNNeD oN THe RuN 7 hours ago

DoD also has a domestic undercover army of 60,000... so they may have been more involved than the FBI...

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-undercover-army-1591881

There is strong evidence that Ashli Babbit's shooting was also fake...

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gb5nZYoFLuar/

DinduNuffin 6 hours ago

that video destroys the whole narrative ... EVERYTHING IS FAKE

Not Your Father's ZH 5 hours ago

The Pentagon Uses the World's Largest 'Secret Army' of 60,000 Undercover Operatives To Carry Out 'Domestic & Foreign' Operations

Feck Weed 6 hours ago

With Wray out there spreading fear about the Great White Supremacy Threat, you can bet the FBI is working overtime to make something newsworthy happen. Remember folks: 3 "militia" = 2 FBI informants + 1 patsy

play_arrow
eatapeach 7 hours ago

https://mises.org/library/conspiracy-theory-history-revisited

Until the JFK murder/coup is brought to light, you can bet it's all hoax, including Trump being an 'outsider'. He's not. He did everything Israel told him to do.

GhostOLaz 3 hours ago

America's perception of the FBI comes from TV "programs", not history or reality.

Joiningupthedots 1 hour ago

"Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the US capitol on January 6th?"

For the same reason the UK government wont release the Skripal Tapes from Salisbury, UK.......LMAO.

Its an inside job........OBVIOUSLY!

Faeriedust 2 hours ago

So. Incidents are being staged and then used as excuses for more draconian State security powers. How is this different from the behavior of known historical groups such as the SS and the KGB? How can this be interpreted except as the actions of a totalitarian State?

Sizzurp PREMIUM 6 hours ago

Scary stuff. They manufacture their own crimes to suit their political narrative and agenda. This is straight out of the Nazi playbook.

Garciathinksso 6 hours ago

this is SOP for FBI, long rich history of manufacturing crimes and low, mid and high level corruption . Prior to that the BOI was even worse.

JaxPavan 7 hours ago remove link

The chickens coming home to roost.

This was a "color revolution" by us, against us. And, it was designed to fail. Like a freakish side show.

Why? Let off political steam. Keep all the people in their respective aisle of the democan and republicrat uniparty bus. Distract political attention away from the full ****** plandemic lockdowns. Keep the rest of the world agape for a few more years thinking things will fall apart on their own, while their resources are extracted. . .

Jam 47 minutes ago

This scam getting some press now is better late than never, but not by much. Some of these media types being all surprised by this must have lived pretty sheltered lives and are lacking any street smarts. This set up was obvious since day one, this is the same bunch that won't call out these crooks for rigged elections.

Oxygen Likes Carbon 48 minutes ago

It should be painfully clear that with the level of surveillance in 2021, nobody can walk into high security governmental building, without being arrested. Let alone organize a mass demonstration then go into Capitol Building during the day, while the politicians being there, to take ... selfies.

... without some help, or coordination from some governmental services.

anti-bolshevik 7 hours ago (Edited)

Replace 'unindicted co-conspirators.' with Agent Provocateurs.

The entire chain-of-command that authorized / planned / executed / gave material support to this Operation should be indicted and prosecuted.

Reminder, Fordham Law's findings

In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil.

Enraged 56 minutes ago

With FBI Director Comey, Assistant Director McCabe, and FBI agent/covert CIA agent Strzok acting against President Trump, this should be considered treasonous, and hopefully they will be prosecuted.

The question is who authorized the latest actions on January 6 since Comey, McCabe, and Strzok were fired.

Conductor "Corn Pop" Angelo 38 minutes ago

I can think of two to start with. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi. Both refused additional security even after being told that the latest intel suggested there was going to be a protest at the capital building on Jan 6th. The two were offered National Guard troops, in addition to Capital Police, to help out, but refused. IIRC, both the Senate and House Sgt at Arms lost their jobs over this, too

Make it three, Mayor Bowser had the same intel and did nothing

Andro1345 7 hours ago

These are old tricks by the FBI. They have been just as bad as the CIA for years.

So many instances going back so far. They plan things, set it up, help to encourage and supply sheep to do these things. If I had someone trying to encourage me to get on board something similar my first guess would be a government operative, seriously.

WeNamedTheDogIndiana 1 hour ago

I attended protests after the election, and it was obvious to be that the rallies at our state capitol were infiltrated by FBI/deep state stooges. A number of them were talking civil war, and said it too boldly in my opinion, and then many of them were carrying AKs, when that was not necessary.

The only rally that I attended that seemed uncorrupted was the first protest in DC a few weeks after the election.

taketheredpill 7 hours ago

Don't be shocked if the FBI funded some of the trips, hotels etc.

And for sure the FBI operatives "wound up" the participants...

But you won't find out for 10 years.

Alfred 7 hours ago

Not just infiltrated.

The FBI actually creates the organizations they then infiltrate.

Someone goes on a good rant here or there, can expect to be befriended by someone of like mind. Thereafter that someone undergoes radicalization and then organization via FBI sting ops. They get funding, they get resources, they get ready, they get busted.

Ha! It's all shake-n-bake, baby!

ProudZion 6 hours ago

...The proud boys was led by a FBI agent....

Mad Muppet PREMIUM 1 hour ago

They're called Agents Provacateurs and it's nothing new. The Government always initiates the violence they say they want to prevent.

Ms No PREMIUM 1 hour ago remove link

"Informants" is a very misleading title. They aren't out there ferretting info of people up to no good. It's more an infiltration and steering game and always has been.

They are basically agents without the boundaries of law. Good front guys too. They will keep them out of trouble and protect them if they can but if it gets too hot they are expendable and even easily patsied. It's all actually actually technically illegal because even when they do real informant work it's actually entrapment.

We used to be protected from these things and now you see the reason behind that. Nothing is new it just has different names and since it's always avoided by media, some of it doesn't even have proper names, at least for the public.

It's basically false flag color revolution operations.

QuiteShocking 6 hours ago (Edited) remove link

The USA's standing in the world is vastly diminished by the continue lies and mischaracterizations of what happened on Jan 6th by the democrats. The police officer died from a stroke and not from the rioters. The unarmed white woman was executed by capital police and no one was held responsible. The democrats have continued to blatantly lie and mislead on what really happened on Jan 6th for political gain...

Max21c 7 hours ago

We recommend you read the entire Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved int he "Whitmer Kidnapping Plot" were undercover agents and federal informants .

People were already aware that the FBI kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was an FBI thing from the start and all throughout. Just as many if not most of these things are as they involve the secret police creating the plots and then unraveling the plots they've created and managed and orchestrated all along the way.

Angular Momentum 7 hours ago

The states need to outlaw entrapment in cases like that. The FBI moles need to be punished as severely as the dupes.

junction 7 hours ago

The FBI and the CIA apparently fund the so-call White Supremacist organizations. Your tax dollars at work. Meanwhile, total silence for a decade from the FBI as Jeffrey Epstein ran a transnational white slavery operation out of his Manhattan mansion, aided by the Israeli Mossad.

Max21c 7 hours ago

The intelligence community and secret police community were well aware of what was going on with the Epstein operation. It's not just the US side either as the UK and Israelis were aware of it also.

Uncle Sugar PREMIUM 7 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Trump is better than Xiden, but

He left Chris Wray running the FIB

He didn't prosecute Comey, Brennan, anyone

He pushed the "Vax"

He spent worse than a drunken sailor

Conclusion - He's not the answer

OldNewB 6 hours ago

He should have pardoned Snowden.

otschelnik 7 hours ago

Well looks like the DOJ is bringing back the Obummer spygate team. John P. Carlin who was head of DOJ/National Security Division is now deputy AG. He let the FBI give 4 civilian contractors access to the NSA database for 702 inquiries, which Admiral Rogers stopped. Also back is Lisa Monoco who oversaw the FISA warrants for Carter Page, and now she's going to be heading up Garland's domestic terror task force.

That's all very ominous.

Farmer Tink 4 hours ago

I didn't realize that Carlin was back. He tried to defend his actions in the annual report to the FISA court but Adm. Mike Rogers, on whose watch the NSA found out what the DOJ was doing, carried the day. I also didn't realize that Lisa Monaco was the one in charge of those illegal Page warrants. It's just sickening that they are being rewarded. Thanks for the info.

glenlloyd 2 hours ago (Edited)

With such a high percentage of those 'involved' in the "insurrection" (said loosely here) and the so called Whitmer kidnapping being from FBI / CIA / other intelligence agencies AND those same people end up apparently being in leadership roles in these groups that are supposedly going to be doing the kidnapping and insurrecting, then it's really hard not to come to the conclusion that the fault was with the FBI et al.

It just seems like the FBI et al were way more involved in this than they should have been, if you're going to suggest that it was the others that are to blame. The tough pill to swallow is the claim that it was the people the FBI et al infiltrated and coerced into do these things, that are to blame.

Things really do stink with this.

newworldorder 5 hours ago

How are these actions are not "entrapment."

InfiniteIntellRules 5 hours ago

I will stop, just too many tales of FBI corruption. Last 1

From the book " The United States of Paranoia " by Jesse Walker:

Under COINTELPRO, FBI agents infiltrated political groups and spread rumors that loyal members were the real infiltrators. They tried to get targets fired from their jobs, and they tried to break up the targets' marriages. They published deliberately inflammatory literature in the names of the organizations they wanted to discredit, and they drove wedges between groups that might otherwise be allied. In Baltimore, the FBI's operatives in the Black Panther Party were instructed to denounce Students for a Democratic Society as "a cowardly, honky group" who wanted to exploit the Panthers by giving them all the violent, dangerous "dirty work." The operation was apparently successful: In August 1969, just five months after the initial instructions went out, the Baltimore FBI reported that the local Panther branch had ordered its members not to associate with SDS members or attend any SDS events.

EVERY MAJOR EVENT. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

heehaw2 6 hours ago

All happened under Trumps watch. He said he was going to lead the March to Capital building, then totally disappeared.

MrNoItAll 7 hours ago

Got to hand it to them. Those Fed guys sure know how to stage a riot to get media attention and shape public opinion. How else could they explain why all the guard troops were needed in D C. When getting them there could have been the primary goal of this staged event.

lightwork 7 hours ago

In the early 70's it seemed that a government informant/ mole was instrumental in the activities of virtually every left wing group in the country. It became common knowledge that whomever was most vocal and advocated the most activist positions was usually "that guy". It was effective since paranoia caused most groups to disintegrate.

otschelnik 8 hours ago remove link

Probably more snitches than that.

Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell who is one of the lucky few released but still charged is a former FBI contractor who had top secret security clearance according to his lawyer.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/538018-man-charged-in-capitol-riot-says-he-worked-for-fbi-and-holds-top

Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio who was arrested 2 days before the riot for vandalism (burning a BLM banner), had been an informer to the FBI and law inforcement in Florida, according to his lawyer.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/27/proud-boys-leader-enrique-tarrio-fbi-informant

Max21c 6 hours ago remove link

They forgot Antifa and BLM in their list of groups.

State sponsored terrorist groups favored by Liberal Elites and their secret police are generally omitted and immune.

heehaw2 6 hours ago

George Bush Senior, then head of CIA was in Dallas when JFK was assinated. Ol George announced as President the New World order

QE49er 6 hours ago

Reichstag Fire style false flag.

Ruff_Roll 6 hours ago

It makes perfect sense that FBI or government supported operatives were acting as agents provocateurs on 1/6, organizing and instigating the riot, and subsequently let off as "unindicted co-conspirators." Pelosi was probably in on it, too.

TheySayIAmOkay 7 hours ago

This is the biggest "duh" ever. Of course the government is involved. Just like they were in 9/11. Just like they were stealing the election. Just like they are in at least some of these mass shootings (the FBI was warned about the Parkland shooter multiple times). Just like they will be in the next big incident that massively strips rights from the people.

The Deep State is real. And it is the upper echelons of the FBI, DHS, CIA, ATF, etc. They are the shadow government that wags the tail. They can do whatever they want and nobody can do anything about it. Do you think if Ted Cruz or Nancy Pelosi killed someone they'd get away with it? No. They are figures. The limits of their power can be stripped with a single, stupid, scandal. How about John Brennan? I have absolutely no doubt in my mind he could. Because who will hold him accountable? Nobody in the CIA or FBI went down for not listening to the FBI agent about the 20th hijacker. Mueller got PROMOTED! He's deep state. Brennan was regional chief of the CIA in Riyadh leading up to 9/11. He got... PROMOTED! Deep state.

3-fingered_chemist 7 hours ago

The fact the Capitol had essentially zero security the day all members were present to tally the EC votes and people still think this wasn't faked?

Jim in MN 7 hours ago

Speaking as someone who actually attended the earlier 'Stop the Steal' rally in DC, I said at the time that the Jan. 6th event didn't smell right and felt like a setup. Recommended that folks stay away, expect trouble and stay frosty at that time.

Note that the FBI was/is also deeply involved in the BLM riots. AKA a criminal conspiracy to destabilize US civil order. Of course a lot of mayors and police chiefs are also involved in that criminal conspiracy.

The more you know.....

jammyjo 7 hours ago

FBI is making contact with unstable people, and do nothing but keep them on a list of "assets" to be activated when needed.

Patmos 7 hours ago

Gives new meaning to false narrative. More than just spin, they actually create the events themselves. Not quite a false flag, because nothing really happened.

Is anyone involved going to stand up and say no? Or have they all just decided to reserve themselves to being corrupt little b!tches?

Feck Weed 7 hours ago

FBI is the US domestic secret police force for the Globalist Empire. Nationalism is the enemy of the globalists...

[Jun 14, 2021] Economist David Rosenberg says the Bond Market might have inflation right

The price of energy is growing. and that means inflation is accelerating, but it will probably take the form of stagflation...
Stagflation is characterized by slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment -- or economic stagnation -- which is at the same time accompanied by rising prices (i.e. inflation). Stagflation can also be alternatively defined as a period of inflation combined with a decline in gross domestic product (GDP). See also Stagflation - Wikipedia
Stagflation led to the emergence of the Misery index . This index, which is the simple sum of the inflation rate and unemployment rate, served as a tool to show just how badly people were feeling when stagflation hit the economy.
Under neoclassic economic doctrine stagflation was long believed to be impossible. This pseudoscience demonstrated in the Phillips Curve portrayed macroeconomic policy as a trade-off between unemployment and inflation.
Jun 14, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

I commented above on direction. I believe the bond market has the direction in June correct (falling yields).

That said, the "real yield" is nearly -5% (CPI minus the 3-Month Treasury Yield). This fosters speculation in assets.

We are in the midst of the third big bubble in just over 20 years.

Extrapolating Conditions

It's usually a big mistake to extrapolate current conditions far into the future. And that includes now.

Sure, there are huge wage pressures and the price of some commodities, especially lumber, went through the roof.

But where to from here is what's important.

Despite Wage Increases, Real Hourly Pay Is Losing to Inflation

On June 11, I commented Despite Wage Increases, Real Hourly Pay Is Losing to Inflation

I also noted Huge Upward Wage Pressures for Both Skilled and Unskilled Labor

But Lacy Hunt is holding pat as well.

He pinged me in response to Explaining the Shortage of Skilled Workers and Why It Will Get Worse with these thoughts.

Mish,

Excellent analysis. I would add one point as a result of your conclusion. Older populations with declining birth rates and slower population, depress household, business and public investment. The contracting effect on investment is highly deflationary and overwhelms the impact of inflation due to the smaller labor force. This condition is plainly evident in Japan and Europe. Moreover, this pattern will be increasingly apparent in the US .

The Transitory Boat

The transitory boat is a small one. Powell and Yellen have to say that no matter what they believe.

Rosenberg, Hunt, and I are in the small boat.

And if you want another reason to be in that boat with us, then think about what happens when asset bubbles burst. It won't be inflationary, that's for sure.

Meanwhile, "I just say buy the gold," Rosenberg said. "Gold has 1/5 of the volatility that bitcoin has."

For more on gold and real interest rates, please see my June 11 post Real Interest Rates Suggest It's a Good Time to Buy and Hold Gold

[Jun 14, 2021] World War II Was Transitory- - Putting Inflation In Context

Jun 14, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Via Global Macro Monitor,

Let us preface our inflation note with one of our favorite quotes:

"World War II was transitory"

– GMM

Inflation has eroded my purchasing power in my transitory life. Bring back the $.35 Big Mac, which was only about 20% of the minimum wage. Now? About 40-50%... Enough to spark a revolution?

[Jun 12, 2021] Jet Fuel Demand Poised For A 30% Surge During Summer

Jun 12, 2021 | oilprice.com

John Kilduff of Again Capital has predicted Brent to hit $80 a barrel and WTI to trade between $75 and $80 in the summer, thanks to robust gasoline demand. Brent is currently trading at $71.63 per barrel, while WTI is changing hands at $69.13.

[Jun 12, 2021] Annual Reserve Revisions Part III- Larger Independents Peak Oil Barrel

Jun 11, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com

HHH IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 4:57 am

On 05/07/21 the US 10year chart formed a hammer candlestick on daily chart within a consolidation pattern. Which suggested higher yields coming. Well little over a month later price broke below the bottom of that candlestick which suggest that the bond market doesn't believe the inflation we have seen is here to stay. Yield headed lower.

The inflation we have had seems to be supply side due to covid. If inflation is at peak which bond market is suggesting. Oil price might not have much more room to run higher. And I'd take it a step further and say price inflation due to a weaker dollar is starting to real hurt places like China and they are going to act by tightening monetary policy. You think this would be positive for the yuan and push the dollar even lower. But when you tightening monetary policy credit contracts and economic activity contracts.

I do expect oil price to rollover and head back to $50-$55 might happen from a slightly higher price from here because of lag time between when bond market signals rollover in inflation back into deflation and when prices start reacting to this. REPLY EULENSPIEGEL IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 10:07 am

This isn't your history bond market.

Inflation doesn't really matters, what only matters is the one big question: "How much bonds does the one market member with unlimited funds buy?".

And the time the FED was able to rise more than .25% is in the rear mirror "" when they hike now, inflation or not, all these zombie companies and zombie banks will fail and no lawyer in the world will be able to clean up the chaos after all these insolvency filings.

They have to talk the way out of this inflation. They have to talk until it stops, or longer. They can't hike. They can perhaps hike again when most of the debt is inflated away "" a period with 10+% inflation and 1% bond interrest.

And yes, they can buy litterally any bond dumped onto the market "" shown this in March last year when they stopped the corona crash in an action of one week.

I think most non-investment-banks are zombies at the moment, and more than 20% of all companies. They all will fail in less than 1 year when we would have realistic interrest rates. On the dirty end, this would mean 10%+ for all this junk out there "" even mighty EXXON will be downgraded to B fast.

In old times the FED rates would be more than 5% now with these inflation numbers. Nobody can pay this these days.

And now in the USA "" look for how much social justice and social security laws you'll get. The FED has to provide cover for all of them.

We in Europe will do this, too. New green deal, new CO2 taxes, better social security "" the ECB already has said they will swallow everything dumped on the market.

So, oil 100$ the next years "" but some kind of strange dollars buying less then they used to.

Just my 2 cents. REPLY D COYNE IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 7:58 am

From

https://longforecast.com/oil-price-today-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020-2021-brent-wti

better resolution at link above, a very different oil price forecast from HHH. Over $100/bo for Brent by the end of 2021.

REPLY RON PATTERSON IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 8:28 am

This is nonsense. They have Brent crude oil prices peaking, so far, in March 2025 at $164.11. And they have WTI peaking the same month at $132.55, $32.56 lower. There is no way the spread could be that large. Also, they have natural gas prices dropping over the same period. Just who the hell are these "Longforcast.com" people?

REPLY KLEIBER IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 11:35 am

Disregard anything with "forecast" in the title. They don't have a time machine, and extrapolation is a horrible metric with dynamic markets as complex as the energy ones.

Might as well show me the tea leaves or goat entrails and tell me the price on 11 June 2027. REPLY SHALLOW SAND IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 3:58 pm

Dennis Gartman is still considered a commodities expert.

He infamously said in 2016 that WTI would never be above $44 again in his lifetime. He is still alive last I knew.

Since I have owned working interests in oil wells (1997) I have sold oil for a low of $8 and a high of $140 per barrel. 6/14 oil sold for $99.25 per barrel. 4/20 oil sold for $15.40 per barrel.

Predicting oil prices is impossible.

About the only oil price prediction I have had right so far is that if Biden won, oil prices would rebound. Of course, we can argue about why that is, and if there is even any connection.

There are still no drilling rigs running in the field we operate in. There are still hundreds of production wells shut in. There are still less than 10 workover rigs running in our field. The largest operator still has a help wanted sign up in front of its office. We finally found one summer worker, he is still in high school, but thankfully covered by our workers comp. He cannot drive our trucks, and is limited to painting, mowing, weed control, digging with a shovel, cleaning the shops and pump houses and other tasks like those. That's ok, because we need that, but not being able to drive is a pain. But auto ins won't allow anyone under 21 to be covered. REPLY IRON MIKE IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 11:53 am

Yea Ron i agree with Kleiber, I wouldn't take anything on that site too seriously. REPLY OVI IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 1:34 pm

The IEA is now starting to sound warnings about supply. Last week they were telling the oil companies to stop exploring and to move toward a renewable energy future.

IEA: OPEC needs to increase supply to keep global oil markets adequately supplied

In its monthly oil report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has said that global oil demand is set to return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022, rising by 5.4 million bpd in 2021 and by a further 3.1 million bpd next year. The OECD accounts for 1.3 million bpd of 2022 growth while non-OECD countries contribute 1.8 million bpd. Jet and kerosene demand will see the largest increase ( 1.5 million bpd year-on-year), followed by gasoline ( 660 000 bpd year-on-year) and gasoil/diesel ( 520 000 bpd year-on-year).

World oil supply is expected to grow at a faster rate in 2022, with the US driving gains of 1.6 million bpd from producers outside the OPEC alliance. That leaves room for OPEC to boost crude oil production by 1.4 million bpd above its July 2021-March 2022 target to meet demand growth. In 2021, oil output from non-OPEC is set to rise 710 000 bpd, while total oil supply from OPEC could increase by 800 000 bpd if the bloc sticks with its existing policy.

https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report-june-2021

https://www.oilfieldtechnology.com/special-reports/11062021/iea-opec-needs-to-increase-supply-to-keep-global-oil-markets-adequately-supplied/ REPLY RON PATTERSON IGNORED 06/11/2021 at 2:09 pm

(IEA) has said that global oil demand is set to return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022, rising by 5.4 million bpd in 2021 and by a further 3.1 million bpd next year.

That comes to about 500,000 barrels per day monthly increase, every month until the end of 2022. I really don't believe that is going to happen. No doubt most nations can increase production somewhat, but returning to pre-pandemic levels will be a herculean task for most of them.

[Jun 12, 2021] Headline CPI is expected to jump 4.7% year-over-year

May CPI is expected at 8:30 a.m. ET Thursday. It is unclear to me why the 10-year Treasury yield fell below the key 1.5% Wednesday. Was it short-covering? if so what triggered it? If predictions are true it might jump up on Jun 10, 2021 because you can't have Headline CPI 4.7% and the 10-year Treasury yield 1.5%. That's the theatre of absurd.
Rent, owners' equivalent rent and medical care services collectively are 50% of the core CPI basket.
Notable quotes:
"... Headline CPI is expected to jump 4.7% year-over-year, the highest rate since sky high energy prices spiked inflation readings in the fall of 2008. ..."
"... "I am worried about rent and owners' equivalent rent because it should go up. It had decelerated," she said. Shelter is more than 30% of CPI , and rent costs have bottomed in some cities, Swonk added. "The issue is it could have longer legs and keep overall inflation measures buoyed more than people expect." ..."
Jun 09, 2021 | www.msn.com

...The consensus forecast for the core consumer price index, which excludes food and energy, is 3.5% on a year-over-year basis, according to Dow Jones. That's the fastest annual pace in 28 years.

Economists expect both core and headline CPI rose by 0.5% in May. Headline CPI is expected to jump 4.7% year-over-year, the highest rate since sky high energy prices spiked inflation readings in the fall of 2008.

... ... ...

"I am worried about rent and owners' equivalent rent because it should go up. It had decelerated," she said. Shelter is more than 30% of CPI , and rent costs have bottomed in some cities, Swonk added. "The issue is it could have longer legs and keep overall inflation measures buoyed more than people expect."

[Jun 12, 2021] How Fanatics Took Over The World

Jun 12, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,

Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head of a vaccine company but introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.

Now I was listening.

me title=

Replay Unmute Duration 0:22 / Current Time 0:22 Loaded : 100.00% Fullscreen Up Next Replay the list

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.464.0_en.html#goog_652049397 The World Now Officially Has Five Oceans UP NEXT Kevin Connolly and girlfriend welcome daughter Edge Of The World: Going Up River Political leaders arrive in Cornwall for G7 summit French president Emmanuel Macron slapped in face during visit to town The G7 summit: What you need to know Awake: Gina Rodriguez On What Drew Her To The Film Awake: Lucius Hoya On How He Prepared For His Role NOW PLAYING

I did not know it then, but I've since learned from Michael Lewis's (mostly terrible) book The Premonition that Venkayya was, in fact, the founding father of lockdowns. While working for George W. Bush's White House in 2005, he headed a bioterrorism study group. From his perch of influence "" serving an apocalyptic president" he was the driving force for a dramatic change in U.S. policy during pandemics.

He literally unleashed hell.

That was 15 years ago. At the time, I wrote about the changes I was witnessing, worrying that new White House guidelines (never voted on by Congress) allowed the government to put Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and churches shuttered, all in the name of disease containment.

I never believed it would happen in real life; surely there would be public revolt. Little did I know, we were in for a wild ride"¦

The Man Who Lit the Match

Last year, Venkayya and I had a 30-minute conversation; actually, it was mostly an argument. He was convinced that lockdown was the only way to deal with a virus. I countered that it was wrecking rights, destroying businesses, and disturbing public health. He said it was our only choice because we had to wait for a vaccine. I spoke about natural immunity, which he called brutal. So on it went.

The more interesting question I had at the time was why this certified Big Shot was wasting his time trying to convince a poor scribbler like me. What possible reason could there be?

The answer, I now realized, is that from February to April 2020, I was one of the few people (along with a team of researchers) who openly and aggressively opposed what was happening.

There was a hint of insecurity and even fear in Venkayya's voice. He saw the awesome thing he had unleashed all over the world and was anxious to tamp down any hint of opposition. He was trying to silence me. He and others were determined to crush all dissent.

This is how it has been for the better part of the last 15 months, with social media and YouTube deleting videos that dissent from lockdowns. It's been censorship from the beginning.

For all the problems with Lewis's book, and there are plenty, he gets this whole backstory right. Bush came to his bioterrorism people and demanded some huge plan to deal with some imagined calamity. When Bush saw the conventional plan" make a threat assessment, distribute therapeutics, work toward a vaccine" he was furious.

"This is bulls**t," the president yelled.

"We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And travel? And commerce?"

Hey, if the president wants a plan, he'll get a plan.

"We want to use all instruments of national power to confront this threat," Venkayya reports having told colleagues.

"We were going to invent pandemic planning."

This was October 2005, the birth of the lockdown idea.

Dr. Venkayya began to fish around for people who could come up with the domestic equivalent of Operation Desert Storm to deal with a new virus. He found no serious epidemiologists to help. They were too smart to buy into it. He eventually bumped into the real lockdown innovator working at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.

Cranks, Computers, and Cooties

His name was Robert Glass, a computer scientist with no medical training, much less knowledge, about viruses. Glass, in turn, was inspired by a science fair project that his 14-year-old daughter was working on.

She theorized (like the cooties game from grade school) that if school kids could space themselves out more or even not be at school at all, they would stop making each other sick. Glass ran with the idea and banged out a model of disease control based on stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.

Crazy right? No one in public health agreed with him but like any classic crank, this convinced Glass even more. I asked myself, "Why didn't these epidemiologists figure it out?" They didn't figure it out because they didn't have tools that were focused on the problem. They had tools to understand the movement of infectious diseases without the purpose of trying to stop them.

Genius, right? Glass imagined himself to be smarter than 100 years of experience in public health. One guy with a fancy computer would solve everything! Well, he managed to convince some people, including another person hanging around the White House named Carter Mecher, who became Glass's apostle.

Please consider the following quotation from Dr. Mecher in Lewis's book: "If you got everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn't let them talk to anyone, you would not have any disease."

At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease" and human life as we know it too! As preposterous and terrifying as this is "" a whole society not only in jail but solitary confinement" it sums up the whole of Mecher's view of disease. It's also completely wrong.

Pathogens are part of our world; they are generated by human contact. We pass them onto each other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them. That's 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn't have a clue.

Fanatics Win the Day

Jump forward to March 12, 2020. Who exercised the major influence over the decision to close schools, even though it was known at that time that SARS-CoV-2 posed almost risk to people under the age of 20? There was even evidence that they did not spread COVID-19 to adults in any serious way.

Didn't matter. Mecher's models" developed with Glass and others" kept spitting out a conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I've read his memos from this period" some of them still not public" and what you observe is not science but ideological fanaticism in play.

Based on the timestamp and length of the emails, he was clearly not sleeping much. Essentially he was Lenin on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. How did he get his way?

There were three key elements: public fear, media and expert acquiescence, and the baked-in reality that school closures had been part of "pandemic planning" for the better part of 15 years. Essentially, the lockdowners, over the course of 15 years, had worn out the opposition. Lavish funding, attrition of wisdom within public health, and ideological fanaticism prevailed.

Figuring out how our expectations for normal life were so violently foiled, how our happy lives were brutally crushed, will consume serious intellectuals for many years. But at least we now have a first draft of history.

As with almost every revolution in history, a small minority of crazy people with a cause prevailed over the humane rationality of multitudes. When people catch on, the fires of vengeance will burn very hot.

The task now is to rebuild a civilized life that is no longer so fragile as to allow insane people to lay waste to all that humanity has worked so hard to build.

[Jun 12, 2021] China Notes That the Same Journalist Pushing Wuhan Lab Hoax Pushed Iraq WMD Hoax by Andrew Anglin

Jun 09, 2021 | www.unz.com
China Notes That the Same Journalist Pushing Wuhan Lab Hoax Pushed Iraq WMD Hoax ANDREW ANGLIN "¢ JUNE 5, 2021 "¢ 1,100 WORDS "¢ 150 COMMENTS REPLY Tweet Reddit Share Share Email Print More RSS Share to Gab

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1400837518665256964&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Faanglin%2Fchina-notes-that-the-same-journalist-pushing-wuhan-lab-hoax-pushed-iraq-wmd-hoax%2F&sessionId=de5a6d92152ac92d71b73e567a6ff0bf88e406ff&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=500px

Previously: There is Nothing Interesting in the Fauci Emails

China is inching dangerously close to dangerous anti-Semitism.

RT :

China's Foreign Ministry blasted the resurgent interest in the Covid-19 lab-origin theory, noting that the journalist behind a report about Wuhan scientists falling ill is the same one who peddled lies that led to the Iraq War.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin took aim at Michael R. Gordon, a national security correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and one of the authors of the report that added fuel to speculation about Covid-19's lab origin.

"Not long ago, Michael R. Gordon, an American journalist, by quoting a so-called "˜previously undisclosed US intelligence report,' hinted [at] a far-fetched connection between the "˜three sick staff' at the Wuhan lab and the Covid-19 outbreak," Wang said at a briefing on Friday.

"Nineteen years ago, it was this very reporter who concocted false information by citing unsubstantiated sources about Iraq's "˜attempt to acquire nuclear weapons,' which directly led to the Iraq War," he charged, referring to the 2003 US invasion.

The WSJ piece , published on May 23, cites "a previously undisclosed US intelligence report" as saying that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell seriously ill in November 2019 with symptoms "consistent" with Covid-19 as well as a seasonal flu.

The report got picked up by other mainstream media, which recently began shifting their coverage on Covid-19's origins from outright dismissing theories that the virus was man-made to admitting that a lab leak remains a possibility.

Gordon is supposedly not Jewish, but he co-wrote the New York Times pieces with the Jew Judith Miller.

Furthermore, I wouldn't personally point to Gordon as the source for the "Wuhan Lab Leak Hypothesis" "" I would point to the Jewish neocon Josh Rogin.

Rogin, like Gordon, spent years promoting various atrocity hoaxes in the Middle East and pushing wars for Israel, and is the original source for the version of the "Wuhan Lab theory," that is currently circulating, writing a Washington Post column promoting the hoax on April 14, 2020.

The point of course is that everywhere you look, there are neocons "" most of them Jewish "" promoting this Wuhan Lab stuff. They are the absolute source of the claim "" they and a Falun Gong Hong Kong CIA feminist woman, Li-Meng Yan.

She is claiming to be a "whistleblower," despite the fact that she in no way meets the definition of that term. The term necessarily implies insider knowledge "" usually, a whistleblower is an employee or former employee of the organization they are blowing the whistle on.

Though none of the media promoting her says it outright, there is an implication that she worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She did not. She worked at a university in Hong Kong when she was funded by Steve Bannon to write a paper making the claim that the supposed coronavirus is a Chinese bioweapon.

Bannon has recently been associated with Guo Wengui, a billionaire who was exiled from China for fraud and various crimes. In June of last year, Bannon declared that Guo is now the real ruler of China in a bizarre video on a boat.

While they were on the boat in front of the Statue of Liberty saying they were going to "overthrow the government of China," they flew planes around with signs announcing their new government.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1268317112524775431&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Faanglin%2Fchina-notes-that-the-same-journalist-pushing-wuhan-lab-hoax-pushed-iraq-wmd-hoax%2F&sessionId=de5a6d92152ac92d71b73e567a6ff0bf88e406ff&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=500px

No one understood what was going on, and even Fox News reported on "confusion" regarding the banners and the livestream on the boat. The livestream has since been deleted, and there is no news from the Federal State of New China. But there is a Wikipedia page documenting this incredibly strange event.

Guo also runs a fake news website (I use that term in the most literal sense) where he published the Hunter Biden footjob videos.

The point is: this is a very weird operation, and it is absurd to take a person funded by these people seriously, as Tucker Carlson shamefully has.

(I'm not attacking Tucker over this, he's overall great and is sometimes just really slow on the uptake, unfortunately "" but it is shameful to get involved with a Hong Kong woman who was literally given money by Steve Bannon and his "Federation of New China" group to write a fake science paper.)

To pretend that she is a whistleblower, to pretend that political organizations funding papers with a predetermined outcome is serious science, is non-serious behavior.

The first time I heard the Wuhan lab leak theory it was being promoted by neocon extremist Tom Cotton. It was then promoted by neocon extremist Mike Pompeo, who was then in the process of trying to start a war with China. Now, it is being promoted by the Jews of CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WVTZBh83RWk?feature=oembed

There is no one involved in claiming that the supposed coronavirus came from a Chinese lab who doesn't have vested interests in starting a war with the Chinese. This goes for all of these Jews, as well as Steve Bannon, who has actually declared "overthrowing the government of China" (his words) to be his goal.

It's very obvious to see how people who want a war with China would use this hoax, and it is great that China is making the link to the Iraqi WMD hoax. It truly is the same thing.

The United States is a country with a lot of problems. None of those problems are the fault of China. China is not promoting gay sex to children, they are not flooding us with millions of brown people, they did not steal our election, they did not take all of our freedoms and collapse the economy.

Our enemies are domestic and they are Jewish. Any attempt to fear-monger and attack China is intended as a distraction from what is going on in this country, and intended to stoke a war.

Furthermore, this "lab leak" nonsense is designed to get people to continue to believe in this coronavirus hoax.


Rahan , says: June 6, 2021 at 6:33 am GMT "¢ 3.8 days ago

Though none of the media promoting her says it outright, there is an implication that she worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She did not. She worked at a university in Hong Kong when she was funded by Steve Bannon to write a paper making the claim that the supposed coronavirus is a Chinese bioweapon.

Bannon has recently been associated with Guo Wengui, a billionaire who was exiled from China for fraud and various crimes. In June of last year, Bannon declared that Guo is now the real ruler of China in a bizarre video on a boat.

This style of presentation is updated "internet culture" gonzo that stands on the shoulders of Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, and in a sense Mark Twain.

That fact that today's Anglospheric system no longer has a place within itself for this type of "dominant narrative-jamming" creativity, and to write like this means one has chosen to become a hunted outcast, means this culture is in a death spiral. It's no longer a self-renewing organism, but simply a collection of isolated biomass units used and thrown away by the masters.

Andreas , says: June 6, 2021 at 8:18 am GMT "¢ 3.7 days ago

"Nineteen years ago, it was this very reporter who concocted false information by citing unsubstantiated sources about Iraq's "˜attempt to acquire nuclear weapons,' which directly led to the Iraq War," he charged, referring to the 2003 US invasion.

Either the neo-cons thought no one would notice or the noe-cons didn't notice themselves.

I'm leaning towards the latter, especially with sloppy drunk Steve Bannon and a "Falun Gong Hong Kong CIA feminist woman" in the mix. Is this really the best they can do?

... ... ...

Ber , says: June 6, 2021 at 8:48 am GMT "¢ 3.7 days ago

"Coronavirus Has Been Found in Sewage Samples From 2019 in Spain, Italy and Brazil Samples as old as March 2019"

https://anti-empire.com/coronavirus-has-been-found-in-sewage-samples-from-2019-in-spain-italy-and-brazil/

BluEidDvl , says: June 6, 2021 at 9:46 am GMT "¢ 3.6 days ago

These times we're living in are absolutely surreal. Not surprised though, we've been doing this for a long time now. Alas, a great many of my fellow White Americans will fall for it completely & be all in for a war with China. None of them ever even contemplating what that would mean for us & the world. But, these are the same people who boast "we're number one" when we rank at or near the bottom in positive stats for all developed nations, beset with crippling societal ills. The same people who think we can vote ourselves out of this mess & Trump will win in "˜24 & somehow save the day. The same people who think our best days are ahead when our productivity base has been utterly gutted, our infrastructure is collapsing & our ability to maintain it & the skill set needed to sustain that productivity/infrastructure is slipping away. The same people who boast of "muh freedoms" when their freedoms & their children's future is being pulled from right under their feet. The same people who think we'll always be on top even when every example of history shows that every empire in history has collapsed. We're racing toward a cliff but they still think "god" is on their side & won't let it happen or we'll stay on top because, well, "we're America"..

Utter denial & abject delusion seem to be a central aspect of our people..

Joe Levantine , says: June 6, 2021 at 10:24 am GMT "¢ 3.6 days ago

" There is no one involved in claiming that the supposed coronavirus came from a Chinese lab who doesn't have vested interests in starting a war with the Chinese. This goes for all of these Jews, as well as Steve Bannon, who has actually declared "overthrowing the government of China" (his words) to be his goal."

" History often repeats itself, first as a tragedy and second as a farce"

Karl Marx.

The tragedy of the WMD of Iraq follows many other tragedies that got young Americans to spill their blood for the sake of special interests making a killing as war profiteers. The farce of " China spread the Corona virus will the biggest tragedy to hit America if the waning bald eagle tries to poke the rising dragon.

Andrew Anglin, is one of the few American journalists who stand boldly for the truth. Not bad for someone labelled a Neo Nazi by Wikipedia.

VICB3 , says: June 6, 2021 at 11:18 am GMT "¢ 3.6 days ago
@Andreas the similarly rotten United States Empire.

We'll all get to see what happens, I guess.

I like reading history, but I don't want to live it.

Just a thought.

VicB3

*That website can offer up a number of interesting links, including this interview with Putin: https://tass.com/economy/1299287

And here's a quote from him:

"The problem of empires is that they think they are so powerful that they can afford small inaccuracies and mistakes. "But problems keep piling up. And, at some point, they are no longer able to cope with them. And the United States is now walking the Soviet Union's path, and its gait is confident and steady."

Dutch Boy , says: June 6, 2021 at 8:13 pm GMT "¢ 3.2 days ago

The current consensus that Covid was likely a Wuhan lab leak was triggered by an article by Nicholas Wade, a former science writer for the NY Times and an impeccably establishmentarian journalist. Previous attempts by right wingers or maverick scientists to advance this hypothesis were ignored or scorned by the establishment press. Wade could not be so easily dismissed. His article, plus the release of emails by Fauci acknowledging the possibility of a lab-created virus (which he publicly ridiculed) and the revelation that Fauci had funded bat research at Wuhan, have changed the game entirely. My own suspicion is that the Biden administration is preparing to throw Fauci under the bus and has signaled the press that he is now fair game. He has served his purpose and can now be used as a scapegoat. It is unlikely that the Wuhan release will ever be definitively proven. It is more important to realize that this research is not restricted to Wuhan or China and that steps should be taken to shut down all such research world-wide, including the USA, lest we have a succession of these disasters.

Mulga Mumblebrain , says: June 7, 2021 at 6:51 am GMT "¢ 2.8 days ago
@Dutch Boy

The USA has been using bio-warfare for 200 years plus and can NEVER be trusted not to carry on such research. It controls c.200 labs, worldwide, where research into pathogens and vectors, particularly arthropods, and the collection of pathogens, is carried out. It used biological agents in Korea in the early 50s, and against Cuba (African Swine Fever and dengue) in the 70s, and God knows where else, and against its own people, most infamously the Tuskegee syphilis abomination. And it is responsible for SARS CoV2, you can be sure.

Commentator Mike , says: June 7, 2021 at 12:37 pm GMT "¢ 2.5 days ago
@Mulga Mumblebrain

The West has been trying to bring down China since they tried to turn them all into opium addicts. Americans were complicit with the British in this and many of the so-called deep state players made their money from the opium trade. Apparently the same families control the present day drugs trade and the laundering of the profits from it; the so-called drug cartels are mostly minor actors well below those who run the operation at the top. Members of the cartels are often sacrificed but those at the top remain the same.

Trial by Wombat , says: June 7, 2021 at 11:02 pm GMT "¢ 2.1 days ago
@Ber t we have is the Josh Hawley demand to declassify everything related to Covid from day-1, and since he made that proposal, it has been crickets from everyone else, which is again indicative that no one in the power elite has any incentive or goal to do more than batter their usual targets.

All that said "" the best practices at this stage of overwhelming deception is to start with what we can in fact establish and prove as actual plain fact, and proceed from there. If you start from what you suspect or theorize, you will soon be enmeshed in fevered propositions ("missiles hit the pentagon on 9/11") that crap all over the genuine facts and do nothing but hand-craft a made-to-order, wild goose chase. This is very welcome by those who want to control the entire denouement, to serve their own agenda.

Arthur MacBride , says: June 9, 2021 at 8:24 am GMT "¢ 16.8 hours ago
@Joe Levantine

"¦ many other tragedies that got young Americans to spill their blood for the sake of special interests making a killing as war profiteers.

Agree the main thrust of your post, Joe.

It is also worth remembering that very many innocent souls in countries across the world have been going about their daily lives when they were attacked, maimed and killed, their houses destroyed, infrastructure wrecked etc by those same young Americans. Some countries at this very hour are occupied and are being looted by the same.

Perhaps not a comfortable thought for Americans to add in as they see their country now descending into certifiable lunacy.
But what goes around does have a habit of coming around, sooner or later.

anonym25 , says: June 9, 2021 at 11:02 am GMT "¢ 14.2 hours ago
@Anon t Ron Unz has been saying from the beginning. If you look at it geostrategically, this is most plausible conclusion. They released the virus in China but those who created it suffered a massive blowback and even worse China came out of it even stronger than ever before. They were hoping China would crumble but instead got stronger while they weakened. That's why they are fanning out a major Anti-China propaganda campaign to contain her now openly with an overwhelming support of western citizens. This frenziness displayed by western politicians is the reflection that China is on the verge an unstoppable economic powerhouse within a few years and they need to put the brakes right now. It is an implicit admission of desperation. The tussle between China and the US is going to dramatically intensify.
Abbybwood , says: June 9, 2021 at 8:52 pm GMT "¢ 4.4 hours ago
@Mulga Mumblebrain

A country can't bring another country down by giving it "Most Favored Nation Trading Status".

Then sending all it's major corporations there to make big deals.

And how has it served the United States where practically every item, pill in the US is "Made in China"?

The American people were sold out decades ago in order for the 1% and their Congressional lackeys to make major bucks. We were even working with them to create a deadly virus!

[Jun 12, 2021] Sidewalk Robots are Now Delivering Food in Miami

Notable quotes:
"... Florida Sun-Sentinel ..."
"... [A spokesperson says later in the article "there is always a remote and in-field team looking for the robot."] ..."
"... the Sun-Sentinel reports that "In about six months, at least 16 restaurants came on board making nearly 70,000 deliveries... ..."
Jun 06, 2021 | hardware.slashdot.org

18-inch tall robots on four wheels zipping across city sidewalks "stopped people in their tracks as they whipped out their camera phones," reports the Florida Sun-Sentinel .

"The bots' mission: To deliver restaurant meals cheaply and efficiently, another leap in the way food comes to our doors and our tables." The semiautonomous vehicles were engineered by Kiwibot, a company started in 2017 to game-change the food delivery landscape...

In May, Kiwibot sent a 10-robot fleet to Miami as part of a nationwide pilot program funded by the Knight Foundation. The program is driven to understand how residents and consumers will interact with this type of technology, especially as the trend of robot servers grows around the country.

And though Broward County is of interest to Kiwibot, Miami-Dade County officials jumped on board, agreeing to launch robots around neighborhoods such as Brickell, downtown Miami and several others, in the next couple of weeks...

"Our program is completely focused on the residents of Miami-Dade County and the way they interact with this new technology. Whether it's interacting directly or just sharing the space with the delivery bots,"

said Carlos Cruz-Casas, with the county's Department of Transportation...

Remote supervisors use real-time GPS tracking to monitor the robots. Four cameras are placed on the front, back and sides of the vehicle, which the supervisors can view on a computer screen. [A spokesperson says later in the article "there is always a remote and in-field team looking for the robot."] If crossing the street is necessary, the robot will need a person nearby to ensure there is no harm to cars or pedestrians. The plan is to allow deliveries up to a mile and a half away so robots can make it to their destinations in 30 minutes or less.

Earlier Kiwi tested its sidewalk-travelling robots around the University of California at Berkeley, where at least one of its robots burst into flames . But the Sun-Sentinel reports that "In about six months, at least 16 restaurants came on board making nearly 70,000 deliveries...

"Kiwibot now offers their robotic delivery services in other markets such as Los Angeles and Santa Monica by working with the Shopify app to connect businesses that want to employ their robots." But while delivery fees are normally $3, this new Knight Foundation grant "is making it possible for Miami-Dade County restaurants to sign on for free."

A video shows the reactions the sidewalk robots are getting from pedestrians on a sidewalk, a dog on a leash, and at least one potential restaurant customer looking forward to no longer having to tip human food-delivery workers.

... ... ...

[Jun 07, 2021] Sidewalk Robots are Now Delivering Food in Miami

Notable quotes:
"... Florida Sun-Sentinel ..."
"... [A spokesperson says later in the article "there is always a remote and in-field team looking for the robot."] ..."
"... the Sun-Sentinel reports that "In about six months, at least 16 restaurants came on board making nearly 70,000 deliveries... ..."
Jun 07, 2021 | hardware.slashdot.org

18-inch tall robots on four wheels zipping across city sidewalks "stopped people in their tracks as they whipped out their camera phones," reports the Florida Sun-Sentinel .

"The bots' mission: To deliver restaurant meals cheaply and efficiently, another leap in the way food comes to our doors and our tables." The semiautonomous vehicles were engineered by Kiwibot, a company started in 2017 to game-change the food delivery landscape...

In May, Kiwibot sent a 10-robot fleet to Miami as part of a nationwide pilot program funded by the Knight Foundation. The program is driven to understand how residents and consumers will interact with this type of technology, especially as the trend of robot servers grows around the country.

And though Broward County is of interest to Kiwibot, Miami-Dade County officials jumped on board, agreeing to launch robots around neighborhoods such as Brickell, downtown Miami and several others, in the next couple of weeks...

"Our program is completely focused on the residents of Miami-Dade County and the way they interact with this new technology. Whether it's interacting directly or just sharing the space with the delivery bots,"

said Carlos Cruz-Casas, with the county's Department of Transportation...

Remote supervisors use real-time GPS tracking to monitor the robots. Four cameras are placed on the front, back and sides of the vehicle, which the supervisors can view on a computer screen. [A spokesperson says later in the article "there is always a remote and in-field team looking for the robot."] If crossing the street is necessary, the robot will need a person nearby to ensure there is no harm to cars or pedestrians. The plan is to allow deliveries up to a mile and a half away so robots can make it to their destinations in 30 minutes or less.

Earlier Kiwi tested its sidewalk-travelling robots around the University of California at Berkeley, where at least one of its robots burst into flames . But the Sun-Sentinel reports that "In about six months, at least 16 restaurants came on board making nearly 70,000 deliveries...

"Kiwibot now offers their robotic delivery services in other markets such as Los Angeles and Santa Monica by working with the Shopify app to connect businesses that want to employ their robots." But while delivery fees are normally $3, this new Knight Foundation grant "is making it possible for Miami-Dade County restaurants to sign on for free."

A video shows the reactions the sidewalk robots are getting from pedestrians on a sidewalk, a dog on a leash, and at least one potential restaurant customer looking forward to no longer having to tip human food-delivery workers.

... ... ...

[Jun 06, 2021] Eurozone Inflation Above Target Sooner Than The ECB Expected

The USA is not immune. Energy price will drive inflation here too. So the decline of 10 years bond rate might a trap.
Jun 02, 2021 | www.wsj.com

The annual rate of inflation in the eurozone rose in May to hit the European Central Bank's target for the first time since late 2018, as energy prices surged in response to a strengthening recovery in the global economy.


[Jun 06, 2021] Watch- A Vindicated Rand Paul Decimates Fauci Over Emails

If we take ZH commentariat opinions as a representative sample of the US conservatives opinion, Fauci days are now numbered. And not only because he over 80.
Jun 05, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Speaking to Laura Ingraham, Paul asserted that "The emails paint a disturbing picture, a disturbing picture of Dr. Fauci, from the very beginning, worrying that he had been funding gain-of-function research. He knows it to this day, but hasn't admitted it."

The Senator also urged that Fauci's involvement has not been adequately investigated because in the eyes of Democrats "he could do no wrong".

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1400317216143380482&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fwatch-vindicated-rand-paul-decimates-fauci-over-emails&sessionId=1c907408994e2f21116e1007779680c9a749f689&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

Paul pointed out that Fauci was denying that there was even any funding for gain of function research at the Wuhan lab just a few weeks back, a claim which is totally contradicted by his own emails in which he discusses it.

"In his e-mail, within the topic line, he says "˜acquire of perform research.' He was admitting it to his non-public underlings seven to eight months in the past," Paul emphasised.

The Senator also pointed to the email from Dr. Peter Daszak , President of the EcoHealth Alliance, a group that directly funded the Wuhan lab gain of function research, thanking Fauci for not giving credence to the lab leak theory.

Ingraham asked Paul if Fauci could face felony culpability, to which the Senator replied "At the very least, there is ethical culpability," and Fauci should be fired from his government roles.

Earlier Paul had reacted to Amazon pulling Fauci's upcoming book from pre-sale:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1400488919771369474&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fwatch-vindicated-rand-paul-decimates-fauci-over-emails&sessionId=1c907408994e2f21116e1007779680c9a749f689&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

In softball interviews with MSNBC and CNN Thursday, Fauci dismissed the notion that his emails show any conflicts of interest, and claimed that it is in China's "best interest" to be honest about the pandemic origins, adding that the US should not act "accusatory" toward the communist state.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1400417592624431105&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fwatch-vindicated-rand-paul-decimates-fauci-over-emails&sessionId=1c907408994e2f21116e1007779680c9a749f689&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

Fauci also said it is "far fetched that the Chinese deliberately engineered something so that they could kill themselves, as well as other people."

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-3&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1400445767530078215&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fwatch-vindicated-rand-paul-decimates-fauci-over-emails&sessionId=1c907408994e2f21116e1007779680c9a749f689&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

* * *


Dotard PRO 17 hours ago

Roger Stone was given 9 years for lying to Congress. Fauci should be on the same hook.

truth or go home 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Looks like Fauci is going the way of Gates, but he won't be arrested, because he is doing the bidding of the overlords.

What could he be arrested for? Let's see: Misappropriation of government funds, lying to a senator under oath, covering up a criminal operation, operating a conspiracy to deceive the people of the United States.

Seems like Rand is willing to nail Fauci to the wall, but he is not willing to go after the big kahuna - the entire hoax - the fake vaxxes, the fake lockdowns, the fake "cases", the fake death count, the elimination of flu...

Lucky Guesst 10 hours ago

Fauci is owned by big pharma. All the major news channels have at least one big pharma rat on the board. MSM continues to push the vaccines. They are all in bed together and need busted up if not taken out.

SummerSausage PREMIUM 15 hours ago

2012- Fauci says weaponized virus research may produce a pandemic but it would be worth it.

Jan 9, 2017 NIAD memo recommends lifting ban on funding weaponized virus research. Fauci controls the funds.

Jan 4, 2017 - CIA/FBI/DNC - under Obama's direction are told, essentially, to get Trump.

Obama is behind release of this virus, creating pandemic panic and lockdown to facilitate stealing the 2020 election.

OBAMA must be investigated.

play_arrow
CheapBastard 10 hours ago

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it."

~ Anonymous

serotonindumptruck 17 hours ago remove link

Call me a pessimist, but I predict no accountability, no malfeasance, no criminal charges will be filed against Fauci.

We've all witnessed similar criminal behavior being perpetrated by the wealthy elite which result in no consequences.

Why should this be any different?

(((They))) now know that (((they))) can lie to us with impunity, and get away with it.

alexcojones 16 hours ago

New Nuremberg Needed Now.

Fauci in the witness chair.

"So, Dr. Fauci, your decisions, your outright lies, led to thousands, perhaps millions of unnecessary deaths."

Kobe Beef 10 hours ago

Does the fluzilla exist?

It could be this thing...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26552008/

Baric & Batwoman published their chimeric coronavirus with ACE2 receptor access in 2015. Funded by Fauci, of course.

Kevin 3 hours ago (Edited)

That document only shows that Gain Of Function research exists - not that the deaths, falsely attributed to covid are due to the product of that research.

What self-respecting, lab-created, killer virus, supposedly so deadly that it warrants the shutting down of the entire planet, is incapable of doing any more damage than the flu does every year?

In the case of the UK, and according to its own official figures, it hasn't even been able to do that compared to its history of seasonal flu.

See: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/deceptive-construction-why-we-must-question-covid-19-mortality-statistics

So, 2020 was just a blip compared to the past and most of that blip in increased deaths was due to the insane policies imposed rather than any lab-created Fluzilla. If you subtract the deaths that occurred due to:

1. Kicking seniors out of hospital and dumping them into nursing homes where they died because they no longer got the treatment they needed but where they could infect the other, previously healthy residents.

2. The many tens of thousands of people who had life-saving surgeries and procedures cancelled.

3. The huge increase in suicides.

..... I doubt there would even be that blip.

If those historically, insignificant 2020 death figures are due to a lab-created, chimeric coronavirus then that's an epic fail of the scientists and an enormous waste of money for their education and the G.o.F. research.

However, it has conned enough idiots into believing that there was a Fluzilla in 2020 and got them to beg for jabs that might be how a lab created, chimeric coronavirus with ACE2 receptor access gets into their bodies and kills them.

The new con that it was a leaked GoF bio-weapon that caused the 2020 'pandemic' is just a lie upon a lie.

But it will persuade many of the gullible and fence-sitters to get jabbed because they will have accepted (subconsciously), that the Fluzilla must have existed last year and that the only way to combat such a bio-weapon is to jab themselves with poison. Ironically, that will create in their bodies what they fear most.

Befits 9 hours ago remove link

No, you are not thinking clearly. The Covid death numbers were clearly and horrifically inflated

1) The CDC changed how death certificates were recorded. Co-morbidities ( cancer, congestive heart failure, COPD for example) that co- morbidity was listed as cause of death in part one of the death certificate for 2 decades until the CDC changed death certificates. If that person had for example a flu At that time ( cough, stuffy nose etc) it might be listed as a contributing factor ( part 2 of death certificate) person died of co- morbidity but flu was a contributing factor. The CDC reversed these to make sure Covid was the cause of death- but truth was people died with Covid not from Covid.

2) 95% of Covid listed deaths actually died of co- morbidities- with Covid not from Covid. The CDC published that only 5% of " Covid " deaths had only Covid- the other 95% had on average 4 co- morbidities. In other words their cause of death was co- morbidity not Covid.

3) personal experience. I was a nurse. A close friend's brother had cancer for 7 years- in and out of remission. He was " diagnosed with Covid via PCR, almost no symptoms but for a slight cough and runny nose in March 2020. In April his cancer came back his liver shut down and he was dead by May 2020. He died from liver cancer but his death was recorded as Covid 19 simply because he had tested positive 60 days before on a Covid PCR test. This is the fraud the CDC perpetrated.

4) Hospitals received greatly enhanced financial renumeration if a patient was " diagnosed" with Covid. Compare hospital reimbursement ( Medicare) for a hospitalized Covid patient v influenza patient - similar symptoms- on or off respirator. Bottom line the medical system was financially rewarded for diagnosing " Covid" v influenza. Indeed the hospital did not even have to confirm a " Covid diagnosis with the fraudulent PCR test to diagnose Covid- just " symptom" based.

5) The PCR test can not diagnose any viral illness- simply by amplification cycles (30 plus) you can " find" Covid from a dead, partial RNA fragment. As Kary Mullis, Nobel prize inventor of PCR testing said PCR testing is NOT a diagnostic tool. Hospitals and docs, universities and public health departments, corporations, the CDC, FDA, used false PCR testing to financially enrich themselves while destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions inc careers of medical truth- tellers.

Fauci, the CDC, and the FDA knows all of this. Crimes v humanity trials must be undertaken v every medical person- from Big Pharma, CDC, FDA, Doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, public health official, corporate leader etc who used this Covid plandemic for personal benefit or whom through their actions harmed another.

SoDamnMad 17 hours ago

Watch Tucker Carlson's expose on "Why they lied for so long" At 3:29 he goes into Peter Danzak getting 27 "scientists" to write in the Lancet that the Covid virus didn't come from the Wuhan Lab but rather from nature (with the HIV spliced into the genome). But he also tells individuals at UNC NOT to sign the letter so that their gain-of-function research isn't tied into this. His e-mail goes to Ralph Baric, Antoinette Baric, as well as Andre Alison and Alexsei Chmura at EcoHealthAlliance who Fauci got the money to for funding GOF Chinese research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32V-e7saq60

SummerSausage PREMIUM 15 hours ago

Fauci is 80. Why was he allowed to stay on so long?

He controls $32 billion in annual grants that all US scientists and researchers depend on.

There's a whole lot more corruption to explore.

CatInTheHat 8 hours ago remove link

This whole thing feels CONTRIVED

Why does this even matter anymore?

China is NOT the problem here and focusing on CHINA DISTRACTS from a few things here.

1 FORT DETRIK. A nefarious US BIOWEAPONS lab that Fraudci worked at for 20 years. FD also works in conjunction with DARPA

2. Whenever it's WAPO or Buzzfeed (FFS!) who breaks a story related to the Rona, I am convinced that the elite have called them up to DISTRACT the public from something more important. Maybe that Fort Detrik was the source of the virus transferred to China via the US MIC/CIA and the Wuhan military games in China in Nov of 2019. 2 weeks later the first cases showed up at Wuhan.

3. This VACCINE has now killed over 5000 people and since the rollout for children between 12-16, several hundred have now been hospitalized with MYOCARDITIS OR PERICARDITIS.. In Israel a study conducted as the vax rolled out in YOUNG MEN, it was revealed that one in 3,000 was suffering from MYOCARDITIS within 4 days of the jab.

MSM is now reporting on adolescents in several states hospitalized with INFLAMMATION. ... Which they blame on RONA. FUNNY how every one of those states have rolled out the jab for CHILDREN

WE are being massively LIED too.

Also, Biden's press secretary PSAKI LIED when she said, today, that 63% of the population has had the jab.

Wrong. Only 41% of the US population has had BOTH jabs. Anti gun Biden is now offering guns in exchange for a vax in Virginia. And anti marijuana Biden offering MJ in AZ for those who take the jab. Why the desperation?

For more perspective on the massive deaths piling up due to this jab, in 1976, when 50 people were killed after the Swine flu jab IT WAS PULLED FROM THE MARKET.

Many thousands who have not had the jab are reporting illness after being in close contact with those who are vaxxed.

Lots and lots to DISTRACT from

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

ableman28 10 hours ago

True story....one of my VC firms investments was approached by the defense department to create a wearable lapel style detector for chemical and biological weapons that would work in very low concentrations giving people time to put on their CBW gear. Our investee said sure, we'll take a crack at it, but where are we going to get all the biological and chemical agents to test it with. The DOD response was don't worry, we have everything you'll need. And they did.

The US bio weapons program was supposedly terminated by Nixon in 1969. And our official policy is that we don't research or stockpile such things. ********.

Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link

This virus was engineered at Ft. Detrick. It's the same place that made the military-grade Anthrax the deep state sent to Tom Daschle and others in government post 9/11 to gin up more fear.

This was a Fauci-coordinated deep state bio weapon they released in Wuhan to kick off the scamdemic and the "great reset". Releasing it China gave some cover to the deep state and the people there are under total control of the state. The rest is just filler. Always about more control.....

BeePee 15 hours ago

The virus was not engineered at Ft. Detrick.

You are a CCP troll.

Sorry you have such a low pay grade job.

Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited)

Anybody who Questions the deep state is a CCP troll? Look in the mirror. You're the one running cover for these satanists! You rack up downvotes like Jordan did points! ZH'ers can spot a troll a mile away son.

louie1 PREMIUM 14 hours ago (Edited)

The US way is to put the perpetrators in charge of the inuiry to control the outcome. Dulles, Zellick, Fauci

Mighty Turban of Gooch 11 hours ago

Our government is corrupt. As long as the Democrats and the MSM have Fauci's back, he has nothing to worry about no matter what he's done.

He's just a typical lying bureaucrat and lying to the public thru the media outlets, as we have seen countless times now by countless government 'officials', is not a crime. Lying under oath however is. But now days we see these guys get away with that too without consequence.

So don't hold your breath. There is absolutely nothing that can take these guys out. Even if they throw one of their own under the bus, the best you can ever hope for is a resignation as criminal charges would never happen.

dustinthewind 16 hours ago (Edited)

"The CDC Foundation operates independently from CDC as a private , nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization incorporated in the State of Georgia."

"Because CDC is a federal agency , all scientific findings resulting from CDC research are available to the public and open to the broader scientific community for review."

"The Board of Directors of the CDC Foundation today named Judith A. Monroe, MD, FAAFP, as the new president and CEO of the CDC Foundation . Monroe joins the CDC Foundation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ), where she leads the agency's Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support."

Gates is the largest private donor of the CDC and WHO. Gates is part of the World Economic Forum who controls Fauci which using US taxpayers funds did gain of function studies first in the US and caught moved to China where it was intentionally leaked to blame the Chinese. John Kerry is also part of the WEF and is their man in Washington calling the war mongering narrative against both China and Russia. Gates funded Imperial College and Ferguson to write the code that was fake and used by many countries to justify lockdowns. Gates is the largest ag landowner and wants to ban meat. Who just got hacked and now it is blamed on Russia? Boris is destroying the UK and after a call from Gates gave 500 million pounds to vaccinate third world countries and lockdowns. Both fathers were tied to Rockefeller Institute. Rand, connect the dots!

" Fauci under Global Attack"

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fauci-under-global-attack/

Fauci is under attack globally and has shown himself to be unreliable and should be fired "" PERIOD! All the emails that have come out from an FOIA request are interesting, and it shows he has information that was credible concerning a leak from the lab in Wuhan. Let me make this PERFECTLY clear! This was NOT a DELIBERATE leak by the Chinese government. If China wanted to really hurt the West, the technology is there where a virus can be used as a delivery system, and as such, it can be designed to attack specific genetic sequences meaning that it could target just Italian, Greeks, English, Germans, or whoever.

COVID-19, based upon everything I see from our model and reliable sources, was created in a lab and was DELIBERATELY unleashed to further this Great Reset. I BELIEVE someone from this agenda bribed a lab technician to release it in the local community. China did NOT benefit from this pandemic. The only ones who benefitted were the World Economic Forum (WEF) consortium, which I know sold stocks and bonds ahead of the crash. They are also in league with the World Health Organization (WHO), and the head of the WHO is a politician and not even a doctor. That is like putting me in charge of surgery at a hospital. How can Tedros Adhanom be in such a position with no background in the subject matter? Tedros appears at the World Economic Forum and has participated in its agenda. The WHO should be compelled to turn over ALL emails and communication ASAP. My bet is they pull a Hillary"¦Oh sorry. They were hacked by Russians who destroyed everything.


The World Economic Forum is at the center of everything. When will someone investigate all of these connections right down to creating the slogan, Build Back Better? Of course, they will call this a conspiracy theory so they can avoid having to actually investigate anything. My point is simple: produce the evidence and prove this is just a conspiracy theory.

'John Kerry's Think Tank Calls for War With Russia Over Climate Change'

https://www.sgtreport.com/2020/12/john-kerrys-think-tank-calls-for-war-with-russia-over-climate-change/

" America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent national security threat it is."" John Kerry

Recently-appointed Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry has announced his intention of dealing with the pressing issue of global warming as a national security concern. "America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent national security threat it is," the 76-year-old former Secretary of State wrote. "I am proud to partner with the President-elect, our allies, and the young leaders of the climate movement to take on this crisis." Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank, the American Security Project (ASP) , whose board is a who's who of retired generals, admirals and senators.

For the ASP, the primary objectives were:

  1. A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,

  2. Countering China in the Pacific,

  3. Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.

The ASP recommends "prioritizing the measures that can protect readiness" of the military to strike at any time, also warning that rising sea levels will hurt the combat readiness of the Marine Expeditionary Force. Thus, a rebuilding of the U.S.' worldwide network of military bases is in order.

Nelbev 17 hours ago

... and what kind of kickbacks does Fauci get when he doles out $ millions in grant money?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6gAbZdhDc

CatInTheHat 9 hours ago (Edited)

Fort Detrik a US BIOWEAPONS lab working in tandem with the Wuhan lab. The US is the leader in BIOWEAPONS research and has 100's of labs across the US and in other countries.

FRAUDCI having worked at FD for 20 years.

MommickedDingbatter 12 hours ago

Without Nuremberg trials 2.0, this is all meaningless.

Nycmia37 16 hours ago remove link

Follow the science, lol. Just ask yourself who controls the science?? Big drug pharmas, people is so stupid they believe in everything doctors tell them. The vast majority are on the field to get rich and enjoy from the big bonuses and trips they get paid in order to promote a drug. If they speak out they get called a conspiracy person. Nobody cant go against this mafia because they have the total control, media, politicians, government. We the people have to self educate about health and finance otherwise we will become zombies like the majority of people.

SoDamnMad 7 hours ago remove link

Here are the 27 starting with Peter Daszak who signed THE LANCET letter saying ," We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. "

  1. Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, New York
  2. Charles Calisher, Colorado State University
  3. Dennis Carroll, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Texas
  4. Rita Colwell, University of Maryland
  5. Ronald Corley, NEIDL Institute, Boston
  6. Christian Drosten, Charité "" Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Germany
  7. Luis Enjuanes, National Center of Biotechnology, Madrid
  8. Jeremy Farrar, The Wellcome Trust, London
  9. Hume Field, EcoHealth Alliance, New York
  10. Josie Golding, The Wellcome Trust, London
  11. Alexander Gorbalenya, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
  12. Bart Haagmans, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  13. James Hughes, Emory University, Atlanta
  14. William Karesh, EcoHealth Alliance, New York
  15. Gerald Keusch, Boston University
  16. Sai Kit Lam, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  17. Juan Lubroth, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
  18. John Mackenzie, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
  19. Larry Madoff, Massachusetts Medical School
  20. Jonna Mazet, University of California at Davis
  21. Peter Palese, Icahn School of Medicine, New York
  22. Stanley Perlman, University of Iowa
  23. Leo Poon, The University of Hong Kong
  24. Bernard Roizman, University of Chicago
  25. Linda Saif, The Ohio State University
  26. Kanta Subbarao, The University of Melbourne, Australia
  27. Mike Turner, The Wellcome Trust, London
gaaasp 6 hours ago

Pangolins indeed.

Moribundus 12 hours ago remove link

Daszak is just cover up for Pentagon. In this case Daszak = Pentagon.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/peter-daszaks-ecohealth-alliance-has-hidden-almost-40-million-in-pentagon-funding/

DesertEagle 12 hours ago

Fauci is protected at the very highest levels of the oligarchy. So regardless of these revelations nothing serious will ever happen to him. At worst, he will step down and retire to his villa in the south of France. Then the controlled MSM will refuse to mention him again.

Clearing 17 hours ago

Gee, while you're at it, sue Fauci in his individual capacity. He doesn't get immunity for lying. See below:

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions" extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law " Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

DemandSider 3 hours ago (Edited)

"PCR is separate from that, it's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That's what it is. It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that," Mullis said.

-Nobel Prize winning inventor of PCR being used as a "test" to perpetuate the scamdemic. Mr. "small government" Rand Paul is only making it worse.

Almachius 2 hours ago

Never mind Fauci. White Supremacists are the greatest threat to America.

Obiden said so.

And Obiden is an honourable man.

Fiscal Reality 14 hours ago

Fauci doesn't give a crap what happens. He got his book deal payoff. He's praying to get fired so he can cash in on his taxpayer funded pension and get a $10 million contract with CNN.

2types PREMIUM 13 hours ago

Amazon pulled his book from presale so says the article. Probably in his best interest to keep his mouth shut right now. Anything he says can and will be used against him. On second thought.... maybe that's why water carrier Bezos suspended sales?

[Jun 03, 2021] The Lab-Leak Theory: Investigating Fauci's COVID Can Of Worms

Abridged version. See the original for full version.
Notable quotes:
"... In October 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on new funding for gain-of-function research projects that could make influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses more virulent or transmissible. But a footnote to the statement announcing the moratorium carved out an exception for cases deemed "urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security." ..."
"... the review process shrouded in secrecy. "The names of reviewers are not released, and the details of the experiments to be considered are largely secret," said the Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Marc Lipsitch, whose advocacy against gain-of-function research helped prompt the moratorium. ..."
"... In May 2014, five months before the moratorium on gain-of-function research was announced, EcoHealth secured a NIAID grant of roughly $3.7 million, which it allocated in part to various entities engaged in collecting bat samples, building models, and performing gain-of-function experiments to see which animal viruses were able to jump to humans. The grant was not halted under the moratorium or the P3CO framework. ..."
"... Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID. At least some of those funds were routed through EcoHealth Alliance. ..."
"... EcoHealth Alliance's practice of divvying up large government grants into smaller sub-grants for individual labs and institutions gave it enormous sway within the field of virology. The sums at stake allow it to "purchase a lot of omertà" from the labs it supports, said Richard Ebright of Rutgers. ..."
"... now the spin doctors come around pointing the finger at china. Sure, china may have done the experimentation and research, but where did the funding, research resources, training, and direction come from? ..."
"... The US banned bioweapon development (in the US) and moved it to China with Fraudci in charge so that they could do human experiments and make lots of money on GMO "vaccines" And now the US is trying to spin the story and put the blame on China ..."
Jun 03, 2021 | ZeroHedge

As the NSC tracked these disparate clues, U.S. government virologists advising them flagged one study first submitted in April 2020. Eleven of its 23 coauthors worked for the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, the Chinese army's medical research institute. Using the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, the researchers had engineered mice with humanized lungs, then studied their susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. As the NSC officials worked backward from the date of publication to establish a timeline for the study, it became clear that the mice had been engineered sometime in the summer of 2019, before the pandemic even started. The NSC officials were left wondering: Had the Chinese military been running viruses through humanized mouse models, to see which might be infectious to humans?

In October 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on new funding for gain-of-function research projects that could make influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses more virulent or transmissible. But a footnote to the statement announcing the moratorium carved out an exception for cases deemed "urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security."

In the first year of the Trump administration, the moratorium was lifted and replaced with a review system called the HHS P3CO Framework (for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight). It put the onus for ensuring the safety of any such research on the federal department or agency funding it. This left the review process shrouded in secrecy. "The names of reviewers are not released, and the details of the experiments to be considered are largely secret," said the Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Marc Lipsitch, whose advocacy against gain-of-function research helped prompt the moratorium. (An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fair that "information about individual unfunded applications is not public to preserve confidentiality and protect sensitive information, preliminary data, and intellectual property.")

Inside the NIH, which funded such research, the P3CO framework was largely met with shrugs and eye rolls, said a longtime agency official: "If you ban gain-of-function research, you ban all of virology." He added, "Ever since the moratorium, everyone's gone wink-wink and just done gain-of-function research anyway."

British-born Peter Daszak, 55, is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit with the laudable goal of preventing the outbreak of emerging diseases by safeguarding ecosystems. In May 2014, five months before the moratorium on gain-of-function research was announced, EcoHealth secured a NIAID grant of roughly $3.7 million, which it allocated in part to various entities engaged in collecting bat samples, building models, and performing gain-of-function experiments to see which animal viruses were able to jump to humans. The grant was not halted under the moratorium or the P3CO framework.

By 2018, EcoHealth Alliance was pulling in up to $15 million a year in grant money from an array of federal agencies, including the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to 990 tax exemption forms it filed with the New York State Attorney General's Charities Bureau. Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID. At least some of those funds were routed through EcoHealth Alliance.

EcoHealth Alliance's practice of divvying up large government grants into smaller sub-grants for individual labs and institutions gave it enormous sway within the field of virology. The sums at stake allow it to "purchase a lot of omertà" from the labs it supports, said Richard Ebright of Rutgers. (In response to detailed questions, an EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson said on behalf of the organization and Daszak, "We have no comment.")

In July, the NIH attempted to backtrack. It reinstated the grant but suspended its research activities until EcoHealth Alliance fulfilled seven conditions, some of which went beyond the nonprofit's purview and seemed to stray into tinfoil-hat territory. They included: providing information on the "apparent disappearance" of a Wuhan Institute of Virology researcher, who was rumored on social media to be patient zero, and explaining diminished cell phone traffic and roadblocks around the WIV in October 2019.

Ebright likened Daszak's model of research -- bringing samples from a remote area to an urban one, then sequencing and growing viruses and attempting to genetically modify them to make them more virulent -- to "looking for a gas leak with a lighted match." Moreover, Ebright believed that Daszak's research had failed in its stated purpose of predicting and preventing pandemics through its global collaborations.

It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity.

Under the subject line, "No need for you to sign the "Statement" Ralph!!," he wrote to two scientists, including UNC's Dr. Ralph Baric, who had collaborated with Shi Zhengli on the gain-of-function study that created a coronavirus capable of infecting human cells: "you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn't work in a counterproductive way." Daszak added, "We'll then put it out in a way that doesn't link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice."

Baric agreed, writing back, "Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact."

Baric did not sign the statement. In the end, Daszak did. At least six other signers had either worked at, or had been funded by, EcoHealth Alliance. The statement ended with a declaration of objectivity: "We declare no competing interests."

Daszak mobilized so quickly for a reason, said Jamie Metzl: "If zoonosis was the origin, it was a validation of his life work . But if the pandemic started as part of a lab leak, it had the potential to do to virology what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did to nuclear science." It could mire the field indefinitely in moratoriums and funding restrictions.

In a CNN interview on March 26, Dr. Redfield, the former CDC director under Trump, made a candid admission: "I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped." Redfield added that he believed the release was an accident, not an intentional act. In his view, nothing that happened since his first calls with Dr. Gao changed a simple fact: The WIV needed to be ruled out as a source, and it hadn't been.

After the interview aired, death threats flooded his inbox. The vitriol came not just from strangers who thought he was being racially insensitive but also from prominent scientists, some of whom used to be his friends. One said he should just "wither and die."

Peter Daszak was getting death threats too, some from QAnon conspirators.

Inside the U.S. government, meanwhile, the lab-leak hypothesis had survived the transition from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told the House Intelligence Committee that two "plausible theories" were being weighed: a lab accident or natural emergence.

Even so, lab-leak talk was mostly confined to right-wing news outlets through April, gleefully flogged by Tucker Carlson and studiously avoided by most of the mainstream media. In Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee's Republican minority had launched its own inquiry, but there was little buy-in from Democrats and the NIH didn't provide responses to its lengthy list of demands for information.

The ground began to shift on May 2, when Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer known in part for writing a controversial book about how genes shape the social behavior of different races, published a lengthy essay on Medium. In it, he analyzed the scientific clues both for and against a lab leak, and excoriated the media for its failure to report on the dueling hypotheses. Wade devoted a full section to the "furin cleavage site," a distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2's genetic code that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells.

Within the scientific community, one thing leapt off the page. Wade quoted one of the world's most famous microbiologists, Dr. David Baltimore, saying that he believed the furin cleavage site "was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus." Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate and pioneer in molecular biology, was about as far from Steve Bannon and the conspiracy theorists as it was possible to get. His judgment, that the furin cleavage site raised the prospect of gene manipulation, had to be taken seriously.

Weedlord Bonerhitler, 1 hour ago

Gain of function research is weaponization. We are under attack by a biological weapon designed in a laboratory to kill people. We are, in effect, at war.

KickIce, 1 hour ago, (Edited)

With who, Washington DC? FWIW, that would be my pick.

ted41776, 1 hour ago

Yes, except "we" moved this "research" to china many years ago to speed up the weaponization of bioweapons. the original researchers came to the us from nazi Germany after WW2 (Project Paperclip). it wasn't moving fast enough here because of that whole experimenting on humans thing was looked down upon here in the US (at least in the past). so "we" hired china what "we" couldn't do domestically on "our" own.

And now the spin doctors come around pointing the finger at china. Sure, china may have done the experimentation and research, but where did the funding, research resources, training, and direction come from?

gregga777, 1 hour ago

Gain of function research is weaponization

It's also insane. Hey, look at what we did! We made smallpox* in our gene sequencing laboratory. Oops! It's release into the 'wild' was an unfortunate accident.

Anyone engaged in the research & development of making viruses or bacteria more lethal or the resurrection of presumably extinct pathogens (e.g., smallpox*) are International War Criminals. They should be arrested and placed on trial in a suitable jurisdiction. At the very least they should be barred forever from working in any kind of even remotely related laboratory research.

*The complete gene sequence of smallpox is apparently freely available over the Internet.

tion, PREMIUM, 51 minutes ago, (Edited)

This study https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/JVI.01085-07

is an example of GOF engineering that bat lady Shi Zhengli participated in, engineering chimeras of SARS and SARS like coronaviruses and splicing with HIV to make it more transmissible to humans.

Pax Romana, 1 hour ago

10 page article could have been condensed into one sentence: Fort Detrick -> Canadian Lab -> Wuhan -> Spooks -> Election Fraud -> Vax -> State Control

ted41776, 1 hour ago

The US banned bioweapon development (in the US) and moved it to China with Fraudci in charge so that they could do human experiments and make lots of money on GMO "vaccines" And now the US is trying to spin the story and put the blame on China

no, this covaids was MADE IN THE USA even if it was produced and manufactured in China under US funding, direction, and supervision

brian91145, 1 hour ago

100% right that is the truth that everyone will know very soon

ted41776, 1 hour ago, (Edited)

not sure if it will make any difference

911: US training and funding bin laden for over a decade? WMDs, they got WMDs! pools of molten metal caused by... kerosene (jet fuel)? building 7...

we gotta get that f||cker bin laden though

bammy arming cartels (fast and furious) and guns they got from him used to kill americans (including cops and border patrol)? crickets

there is no election fraud, after seeing them spend 4 years trying to overthrow a president who allegedly used fraud and russian collusion to get elected?

and on and on and on, the neverending 24/7 stream of lies and distortion

unfortunately, truth has become pretty worthless in this sick reality most people live in

konputa, 1 hour ago

Designed in the US, manufactured in China. We've known this since early 2020.

CheapBastard, 1 hour ago

(((Vanity Fair))) has the same editorial weight that Teen Vogue has.

Handful of Dust, 22 minutes ago

The Lab-Leak Theory- Investigating Fauci's COVID -Can Of Worms-

The article is meant to obfuscate the truth, not clarify it.

CheapBastard, 51 minutes ago, (Edited)

The author carefully avoids inconvenient but important truths including::

Fauci funded the Wuhan bioweapons lab thru NIH (proven by emails) Fauci lied repeatedly from day#1 about the characteristics and origin of the deadly virus (also proven by emails) the WHO lied repeatedly about the origin the involvement of Gates in this entire fiasco

S.Parker, · 1 hour ago

Fort Detrick, USA

Handful of Dust, · 4 minutes ago

· Bumbler-in-Chief Biden in the White House Backs 'Incredible' Dr. Anthony Fauci; Refuses Comment on Explosive Emails Exposing the Lies & Deceit

· https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/03/white-house-backs-incredible-dr-anthony-fauci-refuses-comment-on-explosive-emails/

LarryC, 1 hour ago

Its a book! Damn Tylers it will take me days to read. · The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:

"Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both."

Weedlord Bonerhitler, 1 hour ago

Don't need a next leak. Just need time for the leaky vaccines to do their work. A vaccine that doesn't stop transmission and merely reduces symptoms, is not a vaccine, but an evolutionary pressure upon the virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek's_disease

This is Marek's disease, found in chickens. A few decades ago, it was fairly benign, but then it was treated with a vaccine that merely reduced symptoms to a minimum without stopping the virus. Now, after evolving over a few decades while butting heads with that leaky vaccine, it's so deadly to chickens that any unvaccinated flocks tend to be wiped out by it, making vaccinating every chicken on Earth a necessity.

This is our future. They want people completely dependent on their vaccines to survive.

[Jun 01, 2021] Tesla is dying, and this is how it will end by Adam Kaslikowski

www.amazon.com
May 28, 2019

Tesla completely transformed the automotive landscape when it introduced the Roadster, pioneering the mass-market electric car and reinventing the car as we know . It sold the first widely-available EV, and it did it with a product that you could easily live with every day. The company has done more to further the electric game than anyone else and deserves total credit for making EVs a part of the discussion when it comes to the future of the automobile. Tesla has changed the world. It's also doomed.

The last mainstream automaker to be launched from scratch in the United States was Saturn, a heavily subsidized child of the GM family. Even with those deep pockets, it failed. History is littered with dead automotive brands. The list of deceased automakers is also replete with visionary leaders who pioneered new tech and aimed to dominate the luxury market.

The automobile game is tough. The dirty secret is that the big brands only make around 6% margin on every car they sell

This is all to say: we've been here before. Hudson, Tucker, DeLorean ( twice! ), Packard, and more. The stories here are all different in their specifics, with some succumbing to shady government dealing, others losing to price wars. While the immediate causes of their failures might be unique, the fact that they failed certainly is not.

The consumer automobile game is devilishly tough. The dirty secret of the car making world is that the big brands only make around 6% margin on every car they sell. That's a pathetic amount of profit when compared to other well-known brands like Nike, Apple, or Disney. Shoes, upscale electronics, and entertainment (as well as scores of other industries) all offer double the profit margins, faster production times, less regulation, and fewer unionized workforces. Building cars is dumb. Car companies make billions of dollars in profits because they sell so many cars, not because each car is so profitable. And therein lies the rub for Tesla.

Why Tesla is doomed

The only way to be successful at car manufacturing is to do it at a very large scale. You have to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cars per year to be stable. In 2018, Tesla shifted a total of 245,240 cars . The Tesla Model 3 also became the best-selling luxury automobile in United States; last year was fantastic for Tesla. It also took the company to the very brink of imploding.

Scaling up production lines and capacity is the activity that is killing Tesla, but scaling up further is the only thing that can save it. The company is at the low point of a "production valley" where becoming capable of building 300,000 cars has made them wildly unprofitable, but the only way to get to profit is to build even more capacity to enable it to make 700,000 – 1,000,000 cars. Tesla could potentially have, or raise, the billions needed to do this. It could, that is, if the company could concentrate on doing one thing at a time.

Tesla's worst enemy is Elon Musk. The serial entrepreneur has an affliction that many serial entrepreneurs have: Shiny Thing Syndrome. Mr. Musk loves to chase after new challenges and novel projects. Tesla is currently producing 3 different cars, wall chargers, charging stations, electric semi-trucks, photovoltaic roofs, and spearheading autonomous technology. Throw in the odd flamethrower , underground tunnels , and a new insurance product (not to mention Space X ), and you see a leader not focused on doing the hard work of pushing his company through a crisis of scale, but a man obsessed with moon-shots and new projects.

Scaling up production is the activity that is killing Tesla, but scaling up further is the only thing that can save it

It should be noted that Musk has never operated any business at this scale before. Running a nimble online service such as Paypal is a very different thing than running a multinational car manufacturer -- especially one that is exclusively pursuing new technologies. Quite frankly, Musk is not qualified to be CEO of Tesla any longer, and the mismatch of his skills to the company's needs could not be worse timed for Tesla.

In the next 12 months, practically all other major global auto manufacturers have plans to release their own electric cars. Tesla ate their lunch last year when it became the best-selling luxury car, but at that time, it was the only EV game in town. More worryingly, the most common Tesla owner complaints happen to be the areas that traditional car companies excel at: Fit and finish , service infrastructure , and execution on timelines. When Porsche announced its Taycan electric sedan , its #1 source of reservations was from current Tesla owners. This is a surefire sign that the Tesla customer base is eager to upgrade to something better.

China, the world's largest car market, and the savior of many global brands, cannot save Tesla. Indeed, the current trade war between the U.S. and China is hurting Tesla more than any other car company. The current price for a Tesla Model 3 in China is approximately $73,000, with roughly $30,000 of that price being the result of China's import tariffs. In January, Elon Musk broke ground on a Gigafactory in China, and the total investment in the project is expected to exceed $4 billion, according to Goldman Sachs . That is an amount of money Tesla, quite frankly, doesn't have to spend. After a disastrous first quarter 2019, the company quickly raised $2.35 billion in stock and debt. Even with this recent cash infusion, Musk told employees the company would be out of cash in 10 months if spending continued at current levels.

The end of Tesla

Tesla will not go bankrupt. It cannot go bankrupt. At the moment, the company is still well-placed to raise another funding round and could likely even do as many as three more funding events before investors stop lining up. Failure for Tesla won't happen tomorrow, but it is coming. More and more evangelists are changing their tunes as competition in EVs gets fiercer. Wall street is losing patience with broken promises and erratic CEO behavior. And the everyday consumer is finding more electric car options that tempt their dollar now that Tesla is not the only game in town. No, Tesla's end will not happen tomorrow, nor will it be a dramatic collapse.

Telsa is too valuable a brand to disappear in a cloud of Chapter 11 smoke. Again, history bears this out. The vast majority of automotive brands from years past were acquired or absorbed into larger brands, where some succeeded brilliantly (Dodge) and others slowly morphed into something unrecognizable (Hudson). Arguably, the Tesla brand is the most valuable piece of Tesla's balance sheet as other manufacturers have caught up with their hard technology (batteries, chargers), and are rapidly chasing down their soft technology ( Autopilot ). The Tesla brand is global in reach, and still viewed favorably overall by the public.

The endgame for Tesla is an acquisition. It is the way of the automotive jungle -- the circle of corporate life, as it were. The unknowable part at the moment is exactly who will acquire Tesla, as the list is quite long. Another car company is the reflexive bet, but Silicon Valley and Chinese auto manufacturers are all likely bidders as well. Apple already offered to buy Tesla back in 2013 for more than the company is worth at the time of this story. The field of suitors is wide open, and the eventual winner could well come as a surprise to the everyday public.

Regardless of who steps up to the plate, it will be very surprising if the transaction is labelled as an acquisition. No -- this will be a "merger" or "partnership" to protect egos and that all-important Tesla brand (again, the most valuable asset on their books). Any upcoming news of a partnership with a Toyota or a Mercedes should not be seen as a life preserver thrown out in good faith, but a wholesale pirate sacking of the company. Musk will quietly slip away to chase his shiny things, popping in for product launches and tweetstorms, but the adults will be put in charge and set a profitable course. What happens after that, no one can know.

Before the pitchforks come out, make no mistake: The world is a better place for Tesla having existed. Electric cars are no longer made out of old Porsche 914s by a guy in a shed. We are moving toward an electric future, all thanks to underdog Tesla. The world, and Americans especially, are enamored with an underdog story. But more often than not, the underdog loses. That's why they are underdogs. In the best of worlds, Tesla can influence Mercedes or a Chinese company from the inside to really nail electric cars and make them the most affordable option for consumers. I hope that comes to pass for all our sakes.

Tesla is dead. Long live Tesla.

[May 31, 2021] Yes inflation is transitionary. Thos only question is transitionary to what level?

Highly recommended!
As for whether this is "transitory," we may paraphrase J.M. Keynes: In the long run, everything is transitory.
May 31, 2021 | www.wsj.com
D

David Weisz

I accept the reality except that FED said this inflation is "transitory."

The Fed description is accurate... it's just whether the transition is to lower inflation or to runaway inflation.

Jim McCreary
The biggest single factor that will drive long-term inflation is the absence of downward price pressure from new Chinese market entrants. Cutthroat pricing from China is the ONLY reason the West has been able to get away with Money-Printing Gone Wild for the past 20 years without triggering runaway inflation.

There are no new Chinese entrants because the Chinese are now all in in the world economy. The existing Chinese competitors are seeing their costs go UP, not down, because they have fully employed the Chinese population, and have to pay up in order to get and keep workers.

So, without any more downward price pressure from China, this latest round of Money-Printing Gone Wild is showing up as price inflation, and will continue to do so.

Batten down the hatches! Stagflation and then runaway inflation are coming!

[May 30, 2021] Andrew Yang: The War on Normal People The Truth About America s Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future

Looks like this guys somewhat understands the problems with neoliberalism, but still is captured by neoliberal ideology.
Notable quotes:
"... That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent. ..."
"... Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent. ..."
"... Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick. ..."
"... Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between 1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007. ..."
Apr 27, 2019 | www.amazon.com

The logic of the meritocracy is leading us to ruin, because we arc collectively primed to ignore the voices of the millions getting pushed into economic distress by the grinding wheels of automation and innovation. We figure they're complaining or suffering because they're losers.

We need to break free of this logic of the marketplace before it's too late.

[Neoliberalism] had decimated the economies and cultures of these regions and were set to do the same to many others.

In response, American lives and families are falling apart. Ram- pant financial stress is the new normal. We are in the third or fourth inning of the greatest economic shift in the history of mankind, and no one seems to be talking about it or doing anything in response.

The Great Displacement didn't arrive overnight. It has been building for decades as the economy and labor market changed in response to improving technology, financialization, changing corporate norms, and globalization. In the 1970s, when my parents worked at GE and Blue Cross Blue Shield in upstate New York, their companies provided generous pensions and expected them to stay for decades. Community banks were boring businesses that lent money to local companies for a modest return. Over 20 percent of workers were unionized. Some economic problems existed -- growth was uneven and infla- tion periodically high. But income inequality was low, jobs provided benefits, and Main Street businesses were the drivers of the economy. There were only three television networks, and in my house we watched them on a TV with an antenna that we fiddled with to make the picture clearer.

That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent.

Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent.

Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick.

Hostile takeovers, shareholder lawsuits, and later activist hedge funds served as prompts to ensure that managers were committed to profitability at all costs. On the flip side, CF.Os were granted stock options for the first time that wedded their individual gain to the company's share price. The ratio of CF.O to worker pay rose from 20 to 1 in 1965 to 271 to 1 in 2016. Benefits were streamlined and reduced and the relationship between company and employee weakened to become more transactional.

Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between 1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007.

Nolia Nessa , April 5, 2018

profound and urgent work of social criticism

It's hard to be in the year 2018 and not hear about the endless studies alarming the general public about coming labor automation. But what Yang provides in this book is two key things: automation has already been ravaging the country which has led to the great political polarization of today, and second, an actual vision into what happens when people lose jobs, and it definitely is a lightning strike of "oh crap"

I found this book relatively impressive and frightening. Yang, a former lawyer, entrepreneur, and non-profit leader, writes showing with inarguable data that when companies automate work and use new software, communities die, drug use increases, suicide increases, and crime skyrockets. The new jobs created go to big cities, the surviving talent leaves, and the remaining people lose hope and descend into madness. (as a student of psychology, this is not surprising)

He starts by painting the picture of the average American and how fragile they are economically. He deconstructs the labor predictions and how technology is going to ravage it. He discusses the future of work. He explains what has happened in technology and why it's suddenly a huge threat. He shows what this means: economic inequality rises, the people have less power, the voice of democracy is diminished, no one owns stocks, people get poorer etc. He shows that talent is leaving small towns, money is concentrating to big cities faster. He shows what happens when those other cities die (bad things), and then how the people react when they have no income (really bad things). He shows how retraining doesn't work and college is failing us. We don't invest in vocational skills, and our youth is underemployed pushed into freelance work making minimal pay. He shows how no one trusts the institutions anymore.

Then he discusses solutions with a focus on Universal Basic Income. I was a skeptic of the idea until I read this book. You literally walk away with this burning desire to prevent a Mad Max esque civil war, and its hard to argue with him. We don't have much time and our bloated micromanaged welfare programs cannot sustain.

[May 29, 2021] Peter Schiff -- Inflation Crashes The Party

The read question is when this will happen. So far this year the yield of 10 year bond fluctuate in a rather narrow band. It does not steadily increases...
May 28, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

The latest clue that trouble is brewing has come from the sudden and dramatic arrival of inflation. On May 12, it was revealed that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had risen 4.2% year-over-year , the fastest pace since 2008.

Some tried to downplay concern by pointing out that the gains resulted from the "base effect" of comparing current prices with the artificially depressed "Covid lockdown" prices of March and April of last year. But that ignores the more alarming trend of near-term price acceleration.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in every month this year, the month-over-month change in prices has been greater than the change in the previous month.

In April prices jumped .8% from March, versus an expected gain of just .2%. Clearly, if this trend continues, or even fails to dramatically reverse, we could be looking at inflation well north of 5 or 6 percent for the calendar year. That would create a big problem.

Despite Federal Reserve officials' recent assurances that the inflation problem is "transitory," many investors are concluding that the central bank will have to deal with this problem by tightening monetary policy far sooner than had been expected. This would make sense if the Fed cared about restraining inflation or, more importantly, had the power to do anything to stop it. In truth, we are sailing into these waters with little ability to alter speed or course, and we will be wholly at the mercy of the waves we have spent a generation creating.

[May 29, 2021] Inflation Takes Its Cut - WSJ

May 28, 2021 | www.wsj.com

The Commerce Department on Friday reported that consumer spending rose 0.5% in April from a month earlier, which, coming after March's government stimulus-check-fueled surge, was impressive. The gain was driven by a 1.1% increase in spending on services""an indication of how, with Covid-19 cases dropping and vaccination rates rising , consumers are shifting their behavior. Spending on goods actually declined, with the weakness concentrated in spending on nondurable goods such as groceries and cleaning products.

But a closer look at April's overall gain indicates it was mainly driven by price increases. By the Commerce Department's measure, which is the Federal Reserve's preferred gauge of inflation, consumer prices rose 0.6% in April from March, putting them 3.6% above their year-earlier level. As a result, real, or inflation-adjusted spending declined. Core prices, which exclude the often volatile food and energy categories to better capture inflation's underlying trend, were up 0.7% from March, and 3.1% on the year. The Fed's inflation goal is 2%, though it has said it will tolerate higher readings than that for some time.

[May 29, 2021] Peter Schiff- Inflation Crashes The Party - ZeroHedge

May 28, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

The latest clue that trouble is brewing has come from the sudden and dramatic arrival of inflation. On May 12, it was revealed that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had risen 4.2% year-over-year , the fastest pace since 2008.

Some tried to downplay concern by pointing out that the gains resulted from the "base effect" of comparing current prices with the artificially depressed "Covid lockdown" prices of March and April of last year. But that ignores the more alarming trend of near-term price acceleration.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in every month this year, the month-over-month change in prices has been greater than the change in the previous month.

In April prices jumped .8% from March, versus an expected gain of just .2%. Clearly, if this trend continues, or even fails to dramatically reverse, we could be looking at inflation well north of 5 or 6 percent for the calendar year. That would create a big problem.

Despite Federal Reserve officials' recent assurances that the inflation problem is "transitory," many investors are concluding that the central bank will have to deal with this problem by tightening monetary policy far sooner than had been expected. This would make sense if the Fed cared about restraining inflation or, more importantly, had the power to do anything to stop it. In truth, we are sailing into these waters with little ability to alter speed or course, and we will be wholly at the mercy of the waves we have spent a generation creating.

[May 28, 2021] What Commodities Prices Are Saying About Inflation by Ryan Dezember, Joe Wallace and Andrew Barnett

May 20, 2021 | www.wsj.com

Prices for the building blocks of the economy have surged over the past year. Oil, copper, corn and gasoline futures all cost about twice what they did a year ago, when much of the world was locked down to fight the spread of the deadly coronavirus. Lumber has more than tripled.

... ... ...

N

Nidge M

Not sure its adding anything which hasn't been said already but to look at the same thing in a different way:
2, or if you look at it 'sideways' 3, main interwoven factors drive inflation:
Access to money to spend - That can be wage/earnings increases or access to cheap debt. That ups demand & prices follow.
Devaluation of the currency - Pushes up raw material imports & prices follow.

What curbs inflation?:
High taxation
High interest rates
High unemployment

And if anyone can point to any Western Democracy currently willing to implement any one, never mind all three, of those controls a lot of folk will probably be pretty surprised.

Michael Matus
Commodities prices are not the problem. They are high now because of a short-term surge in demand and supply chain issues. All should be worked out by this time next year.

The long-term structural problem could be wages. If inflation shows up in wages through wage increases through a multitude of industries then there will be a problem,....... a major one.

Having all these people on the Dole from the government didn't help things Joe!

But like all Presidents that came after HW Bush all you care about is getting re-elected. Doling out is a great way even if its at the cost of the country.

The FED as been intervening in the markets for so long that they have no tools left for the next crisis.

The FED painted themselves into a corner and the Stimulus that was not needed left them no Escape.

Michael Brown
"Having all these people on the Dole from the government didn't help things Joe!"

What about raising the minimum wage, and Joe commanding that all workers for federal contractors be paid $15 per hour or more? You think that could be inflationary?

Michael Matus
I would have to agree with yoiu Michael. I should have mentioned that, thank you for reminding me. However, the main problem with all the sources trhat I have out on the street and their are mnay. Is WAGE growth. As far as a national mimum wage there is none. Altough there probably will be now. Most states pay as high or higher than what the Federal Government was proposing.

90% of government contractors make at least $15.00 an hour anyway. The VAST majority of the problem is enhanced unemployment insurance. The 3 month averge of wage groth ending in March was 3.4%. If it hits > 4.0% that will be bad.

Michael Brown
Excellent points, Michael. The list of government actions instigating inflation would be long indeed.
Michael Matus
Unfortunately, Michael, I would have to Wholeheartedly agree with you, Have a Good Weekend!
JOSEPH MICHAEL
Serious, severe inflationary problems are here, they are just starting, and they are going to get much worse.
Brian Kearns
eh.
best to give corporations a large tax cut

so the can buy back stock

Bill Hestir
I will interested to see if new car prices, lumber prices, new home prices, gasoline prices, and food prices will ever go back down to pre-pandemic levels.

If not, with all the new anti-business taxes and reluctance of out-of-work laborers to go back to work, how will businesses not be forced to raise their wages and increase the price of their products even higher than they are today?

At what point, therefore, will the Fed end their "inflation is transitory" farce and raise interest rates?

Deirdre Hood
Food prices, regardless of when inflation ends, will not go down/return to 'normal'.

Supply lines are squeezed (NO ONE can hire reliable transport drivers), low supply of workers, plus factor in a bad year for wheat, and it turns into the perfect storm for commercial bakers.

Judy Neuwirth
Inflation is just getting started. Cho Bi-Den's hyper-regulated economy is only three months old and already it's 1976 all over again!
Jim Chapman
Now Judy, it's just "transitory" inflation as per Yellen, Powell and Buyden. You really must stick with the narrative, and remember, Adam Smith's scurrilous "Invisible Hand" is a ultra-right wing conservative myth. So we are not supposed to believe our lying eyes.

[May 28, 2021] Inflation Forces Investors to Scramble for Solutions - WSJ

May 24, 2021 | www.wsj.com

The price of the benchmark 10-year Treasury inflation-protected security logged its biggest one-day decline in a month. Shares of real-estate investment trusts slid the most since January. Commodities were generally flat but dropped the following day.

The three asset classes have vacillated since, but their initial moves showed the unexpected ways that markets can behave when inflation is rising, especially when many are already expensive by historical measures.

This week, investors will gain greater insight into the inflation picture when the Commerce Department updates the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge, the personal-consumption-expenditures price index. They will also track earnings from the likes of Dollar General Corp. , Costco Wholesale Corp. and Salesforce.com Inc.

The stakes are high for investors. Inflation dents the value of traditional government and corporate bonds because it reduces the purchasing power of their fixed interest payments. But it can also hurt stocks, analysts say, by pushing up interest rates and increasing input costs for companies.

From early 1973 through last December, stocks have delivered positive inflation-adjusted returns in 90% of rolling 12-month periods that occurred when inflation""as measured by the consumer-price index""was below 3% and rising, according to research by Sean Markowicz, a strategist at Schroders, the U.K. asset-management firm. But that fell to only 48% of the periods when inflation was above 3% and rising.

A recent report from the Labor Department showed that the consumer-price index jumped 4.2% in April from a year earlier, up from 2.6% in March. Even excluding volatile food and energy prices, it was up 3% from a year earlier, blowing past analysts' expectations for a 2.3% gain.

Analysts say that there are plenty of reasons why inflation won't be able to maintain that pace for long. The latest year-over-year numbers were inflated by comparisons to deeply depressed prices from the early days of the pandemic. They were also supported by supply bottlenecks that many view as fixable and robust consumer demand that could dissipate once households have spent government stimulus checks.

... ... ...

By comparison, the S&P GSCI Commodity Total Return Index delivered positive inflation-adjusted returns in 83% of the high and rising inflation periods. "Commodities are a source of input costs for companies and they're also a key component of the inflation index, which by definition you're trying to hedge," said Mr. Markowicz.

At the same time, commodities are among the most volatile of all asset classes and can be influenced by an array of idiosyncratic factors.

T

Tracy Harris

Charles Goodhart, the economist from the Bank of England, has just written an important book arguing that worldwide demographic changes are going to result in a couple of decades of high inflation. See Charles Goodhart, The Great Democratic Reversal: Ageing Societies, Waning Inequality, and an Inflation Revival. Maybe the Journal could find someone to review it. Maybe Ms. Yellen should read it.

(Douglas Levene)

Bruce Fegley
This article is naive, if not ridiculous, for several reasons. I name a few.

1st - the stock market is the best hedge against inflation over a long time period - years, not daily, weekly, or quarterly. Especially with dividend reinvesting and with an automatic buying plan like the DRIP plans offered by many companies at no or very low cost.

2nd - Individuals can buy US government I-series savings bonds at NO COST directly from the US Treasury, and while they do not completely hedge against inflation, they offer good interest rates that beat bank interest and are completely insured.

3rd - Toyota and perhaps other car companies offer notes with higher interest than banks but not FDIC insured. About 1.5% now.

One does not have to blow money away on bitcoin or hold gold, which is taxed as a collectible and has assay fees on the front and back ends of any buy/sell transaction unless one is buying coins which have a markup to begin with.

Theo Walker
Started buying I-bonds this month. The rates are great! Easily the best safe investment right now.
Bryson Marsh
... why would you buy TIPS? The spread is a farce after all.
PHILIP NICHOLAS
Inflation is always sticky . In other words all the prices do not go down . Wages that are increased , usually stay . Companies sense a new level they can pass on to consumers . And the Government damage to energy prices will influence prices .
Bryson Marsh
Memory costs, data plans, and televisions are all examples that clearly demonstrate secular price declines despite periodic increases.
Charles D
"Inflation Forces Investors to Scramble for Solutions"
Hundreds of millions of Americans are going to suffer as the Federal Government inflates the national debt away over the next 10 to 15 years. Investors will figure it out, but the little guy will get crushed once again. Oh well, we get the government we deserve.
A Eichler
CME futures contracts ...

OIL - NAT GAS - PROPYLENE - COPPER - LUMBER - STEEL - SOYBEAN - 2 yr. and 5 yr. T-Note

They are all substantially down, one year from now; except Copper and financials which are flat.

What does that say about the economy & inflation in one year?

Paul Smith
I am under the impression that the Social Security COLA is based on a September to September comparison of the CPI-U. That is to say, for example, September 2020 CPI-U vs. September 2021 CPI-U. Is this not correct?

We have had inflation over over the past decade or so. As measured by the CPI-U, it has hovered around 2 percent. Not a big deal to the Fed's economists. Cumulatively, however, it adds up.

I have been retired for 16 years. Inflation has eroded the purchasing power of my fixed pension by 25.5. Mercifully, I have other resources to make up the loss, but for people on a fixed pension, so-called mild inflation can wreck it over time.

James Webb
Paul, one of the lower estimates for 2022:

"The Kiplinger Letter is forecasting that the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits for 2022 will be 4.5%, the biggest jump since 2008, when benefits rose 5.8%. That would also be higher than the 3% adjustment The Kiplinger Letter predicted earlier this year."

From SocialSecurity dot gov:

"To determine the COLA, the average CPI-W for the third calendar quarter of the most recent year a COLA was determined is compared to the average CPI-W for the third calendar quarter of the current year. The resulting percentage increase, if any, represents the percentage that will be used to increase Social Security benefits beginning for December of the current year. "

So the predicted 4.5-4.7% increase for 2022 will take effect December 31 this year.

Of course the calculation is not completed yet....

James Robertson
The Fed's inflation calculations have become increasingly "fuzzy" since the Boskin Commission in 1995. The CPI ignores housing, food, and energy. Healthcare gets weighted at 3 percent, though it accounts for 18 percent of expenditures. "Hedonic quality adjustment" is another knob the Fed turns to "control" inflation. Inflation calculated by comparing the price of a basket of goods this year to a basket of goods last year runs quite a bit higher than the CPI; even higher if you include food, shelter, and energy in that basket.
James Webb
What's in the CPI?

-Food and Beverages (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
-Housing (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
-Clothes (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
-Transportation (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
-Medical Care (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
-Recreation (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions)
-Education and Communication (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories)
-Other Goods and Services (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses)

Tim Adams
The core CPI which the Fed uses excludes food and energy. The Consumer price index which is used for things like social security adjustments does not. These very similar but different uses of the same acronym just adds to the confusion.

[May 28, 2021] Liz Cheney Faces Chopping Block As GOP Braces For Chaotic Week

It is always good when neocons are demoted. Warmongering neocon pigs should be removed.
May 09, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

"She's done as a member of leadership. I don't understand what she's doing," one former House GOP lawmaker told The Hill of Cheney's ongoing attacks on former President Trump. " It's like political self-immolation. You can't cancel Trump from the Republican Party; all she's done is cancel herself. "

Cheney has repeatedly attacked Trump for 'inciting' the Jan. 6 'insurrection' despite telling supporters to protest peacefully and then go home following the breach of the Capitol.

GOP leaders hope that purging Cheney from the leadership ranks will move Republicans beyond their civil war over Trump" one that's raged publicly since the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol" and allow the party to unite behind a midterm campaign message that President Biden and the Democrats are too liberal for the country. - The Hill

"There are still a few members that are talking about things that happened in the past, not really focused on what we need to do to move forward and win the majority back next year," according to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the minority whip. "We're going to have to be unified if we defeat the socialist agenda you're seeing in Washington."

A victory by Stefanik would mark a symbolic shift back towards Trump by leading Republicans - as the former president remains highly engaged this election cycle and has threatened to politically obliterate any remaining GOP opposition.

"By ousting her, what we're saying is: We are repudiating your repudiation of the Trump policies and the Trump agenda and her attacks on the president," according to Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), adding " President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. And when she's out there attacking him, she's attacking the leader of the Republican Party ."

Cheney has already survived one challenge to her leadership post, in February, after she infuriated conservatives by voting to impeach Trump for inciting the Capitol rampage on Jan. 6. With the backing of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), she easily kept her seat as conference chair, 145 to 61 by secret ballot.

With McCarthy and Scalise fed up with Cheney and now backing Stefanik, the 36-year-old New Yorker is expected to prevail in Wednesday's contest" a would-be victory for leaders who have failed to unite the conference behind a post-Trump strategy in the early months of the Biden administration. - The Hill

... ... ...

Cheney isn't the only House Republican facing backlash for taking on Trump. Earlier in the week, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), one of seven Republican senators who voted this year to convict Trump, was booed and called a traitor at the Utah GOP state convention, where he narrowly beat back an effort to censure him.

On Friday, the Ohio Republican Party Central Committee voted to censure Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio), Cheney and the eight other House Republicans who backed Trump's impeachment in January. The Ohio GOP also formally called for Gonzalez's resignation.

... ... ...


Catullus 51 minutes ago

I don't care if Trump runs again just as long as these gross establishment Republicans are thrown out on their asses

JoeyChernenko PREMIUM 39 minutes ago (Edited)

Romney is a real traitorous worm. Did you hear him say Biden is a good man with good intentions when the Utah crowd was booing his worthless hide? And we need to make sure the Bush dynasty remains out of power.

Anath 51 minutes ago remove link

the cheney family is pure evil. that is all.

chinese.sniffles 52 minutes ago

Why Would Wyoming choose Chenney, after all that evil that **** brought upon America. If there was no ****, Obama would never get elected.

chunga 47 minutes ago remove link

Cynics suspect primaries are also rigged.

Basecamp3 PREMIUM 50 minutes ago

Comstock is a traitor that never read the Navarro Report which goes into detail of how the election was stolen. Also, ousting Cheney has zero risk. She is stupid, weak, and her own constituents hate her.

overbet 50 minutes ago

which has caused some GOP leaders to fear alienating female Republican voters, particularly educated suburbanites who will be key votes in the 2022 elections.

The female republicans I know are smarter than that. All of them

Grave Dancer 22 38 minutes ago remove link

Liz's sociopath dad **** got hundreds of thousands killed based on a total fraud lie of a war. And Liz has a problem with Trump because he tweets some unfiltered stuff once in a while? Freaking kidding me? ay_arrow

GhostOLaz 37 minutes ago

Don't blame Liz, she has a legacy of treason to protect, Daddy removed the only secular anti Communist govt in the middle East which protected Christains and religious minorities...

gaaasp 20 minutes ago (Edited)

Women could wear pants and not be burkahed up in Syria and Libya and Iraq before Bush/Clinton/Obama/Trump sent troops.

chunga 49 minutes ago

I don't want to give up on the process but the GOP has a lot of work to do.

nmewn 39 minutes ago

The thing about "us" is, when we find them we jettison them. Cantor was another one. She voted to impeach an outgoing President who's trial she knew would be held AFTER he was out of office and again just an average American citizen holding no federal office at all.

She is either incompetent, stupid (or both) or a cancer the GOP can live with excised from the body.

Make_Mine_A_Double 40 minutes ago

Peggy Noonan really came out the closet in this weekend's WSJ with editorial of Liz Chaney against the House of Cowards.

They are 2 of the same. We've had these demsheviks in the ranks for decades. Noonan takes it in the anoose at dem cocktail parties and is Team Mascot for the RINOs.

Tucker finally exposed that filth Luntz. McCathry is actually living with him in one of his apartments - I assume it's not platonic in nature.

This is why Trump could never even the bottom of the swamp....g.d. RINOs need to purged with the extreme prejudice.

the Mysterians 40 minutes ago

War pig.

in deditionem acceptos 48 minutes ago

Liz will survive the vote. Too much graff from the MIC to get her out. McCarthey could of got her out in Feb if he wanted. Wonder what honey pot he's dipping into?

A Girl In Flyover Country 43 minutes ago

She won't survive the Wyoming voters, though.

Cogito_ergosum 52 minutes ago (Edited)

She is protecting her dad who was part of the inside gang that carried out the... demolition of the twin towers on 911...

Flying Monkees 37 minutes ago (Edited)

BS. The tribe's fingerprints were all over 9/11 as documented in extensive detail by Christopher Bollyn.

JoeyChernenko PREMIUM 53 minutes ago

Don't any of these evil families ever just fade into oblivion? Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Obama, etc.

beavertails 50 minutes ago

Extending and pretending there are choices when there aren't any. The MIC got this. The "Prez" is just show to sell ads and steal, I mean raise fiat from the gullible.

[May 28, 2021] Inflation Debate Hits Emerging Markets

Notable quotes:
"... there's a growing sense that the forces behind the recovery will eventually feed through to higher prices if left unchecked. One harbinger could be the rally in commodities, with a key index of raw materials this month jumping to a five-year high. ..."
"... "If the stimulus continues, at some point it will become inflationary," said Sanjiv Bhatia, the chief investment officer at Pembroke Emerging Markets in London. "At some point, we believe it will become a problem." ..."
May 09, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

The prospect of tighter monetary conditions in emerging markets still hasn't changed the overall calculus for many investors, with behemoths including Pacific Investment Management Co. and BlackRock Inc. focusing on the growth story instead. Developing-nation inflation remains near a record low, with the economic rebound making assets look "increasingly interesting," according to Dan Ivascyn, Pimco's group chief investment officer in Newport Beach, California.

Yet there's a growing sense that the forces behind the recovery will eventually feed through to higher prices if left unchecked. One harbinger could be the rally in commodities, with a key index of raw materials this month jumping to a five-year high.

"If the stimulus continues, at some point it will become inflationary," said Sanjiv Bhatia, the chief investment officer at Pembroke Emerging Markets in London. "At some point, we believe it will become a problem."

For now, assurances from the Federal Reserve that inflation in the U.S. is unlikely to get out of control have supported the bulls. The Fed appears in no rush to raise interest rates, a move that would siphon capital out of emerging economies currently enjoying the windfall from U.S. stimulus.

That major central banks currently view inflation as transitory should boost developing-nation currencies as a whole, according to Henrik Gullberg, a London-based macro strategist at Coex Partners Ltd.

MSCI Inc.'s emerging-market currency index has climbed to a record high, while the benchmark equity gauge just posted its biggest two-day rally in almost two weeks amid a rally in energy and technology shares. On Friday, risk assets got further support when U.S. job growth data significantly undershot forecasts.

"On the one hand, the valuations of growth stocks look meaningfully less demanding after recent underperformance coupled with earnings upgrades," said Kate Moore, the head of thematic strategy at BlackRock in New York. "On the other, rising inflationary pressures from the broad economic restart and low inventories should be supportive of cyclicals and commodity producers."

[May 28, 2021] Treasury yields to rise in the second half of the year, pushed higher by rises in yields on inflation-protected Treasurys

Notable quotes:
"... Mark Carbana, U.S. rates strategist at Bank of America, still expects U.S. rates to rise further especially if there is a strong reading for the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, personal consumption expenditures, due out next Friday. ..."
"... He expects Treasury yields to rise in the second half of the year ..."
May 21, 2021 | www.wsj.com

Originally from Government Bond Yields Fall as Investors Grapple With Muddied Economic Picture by By Paul J. Davies

In the U.S., inflation readings have been strong and the minutes of the last Fed meeting released Wednesday showed there had been some discussion about slowing bond purchases -- also known as taper talk.

... Mark Carbana, U.S. rates strategist at Bank of America, still expects U.S. rates to rise further especially if there is a strong reading for the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, personal consumption expenditures, due out next Friday. "Uncertainty around inflation is the highest it has been in decades," he said, particularly around whether recent high readings are temporary or due to changes in the underlying economy. He expects Treasury yields to rise in the second half of the year , pushed higher by rises in yields on inflation-protected Treasurys as the Fed starts to talk more seriously about tapering its bond purchases.

Write to Paul J. Davies at paul.davies@wsj.com

[May 28, 2021] Despite Initial Claims Drop, Almost 16 Million Americans Remain On Government Dole

For April 2021 the official Current Unadjusted U-6 unemployment rate was 9.9% down from 10.9% in March, and 11.6% in February, January was 12.0%. It was also 11.6% October "" December 2020. But It was 18.3% in June, 20.7% in May, and 22.4% in April. It is still well above the 8.9% of March 2020 when unemployment rates started jumping drastically due to massive shutdowns due to the Coronavirus.
May 27, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Initial Jobless Claims tumbled (positively) to their lowest since the pandemic lockdowns began, adding just 406k Americans last week (well below the 425k expected). This is still double the pre-pandemic norms

y_arrow 1
Truthtellers 11 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Companies laid off an additional 400K people last week and they actually think we are dumb enough to believe there is a labor shortage? That line of crap is obviously just a ploy to get employee's to accept lower salaries.

I'll believe there is a labor shortage after 16 million jobs have been added and the weekly initial claims number is zero.

Until then, I guess if you have a "labor shortage" you better get that pay up.

AJAX-2 13 hours ago (Edited)

Another 400K+ applying for 1st time unemployment benefits and yet they piss on my leg, tell me it's raining, while proclaiming there is a labor shortage. Bu!!****.

PerilouseTimes 9 hours ago

Close to a million people a week were signing up for unemployment for a year and unemployment has been extended. Wouldn't that mean at least 40 million Americans are on unemployment not to mention all the people on welfare and disability? I think the number is closer to 100 million Americans on the government dole and that doesn't count all the worthless government jobs out there.

Normal 12 hours ago remove link

I'm on unemployment except California seems to have quit paying people on unemployment. I tried every-which-way to contact them but there is no way in hell to get through to a live person. I went and typed in how to speak with a real person at the EDD, and hundreds of people have posted that they haven't been paid in 12 weeks. I spoke with their Cal-Jobs representative and she said that many people haven't been paid since March of last year. I think they are forcing the so-called unemployed to their Cal-Jobs site by not paying them.

ay_arrow
NEOSERF 13 hours ago

Worst month during the GFC appears to be about 650K...we are only 50% below that....with 21 states preparing to end the extension, things will be fantastic in these numbers shortly if not the real world...waiting for all the cold/flu season coughing and cold weather in November...

[May 28, 2021] How transitory is transitory inflation?

May 27, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

As the credit strategist continues, "while it is easy to blame transitory factors, these were surely all known about before the last several data prints and could have been factored into forecasts. That they weren't suggests that the transitory forces are more powerful than economists imagined or that there is more widespread inflation than they previously believed. "

To be sure, all such "˜surprise' indices always mean revert so the inflation one will as well. However as Reid concludes, "the fact that we're seeing an overwhelming positive beat on US inflation surprises in recent times must surely reduce the confidence to some degree of those expecting it to be transitory. "

[May 28, 2021] Electricity usage in the USA will take " until 2022 to get back to 2019 levels': Duke Energy CEO

Highly recommended!
That means there there was no industrial recovery at all: stagnation continues unabated. Claims that the the U.S. economy surges in this sense are fraudulent.
But the fact is that stock market casino is now is completely detached from real economy and lives with its own life and dynamics. Of cource, this will not end well, but nobody knows when the bubble will burst or will be deflated by FED.
Apr 30, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

Duke Energy CEO Lynn Good joins 'Influencers with Andy Serwer' to disccuss the pandemic's long-term impact on the energy industry.

Duke observed 10-15% deline in some months of 2020 and 3% for 2020 as a whole.

[May 28, 2021] Stocks could drop 20% when Fed fights inflation: hedge fund founder

May 25, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

Inflation fears already roiled the market this week with the Nasdaq falling nearly 2%, but one hedge fund founder is sounding the alarm over a potential 20% collapse that could be sparked by the Federal Reserve signaling an end to accommodative pandemic-era monetary policy later this year.

Satori Fund founder Dan Niles recently told Yahoo Finance that this week's hotter-than-anticipated inflation data coupled with other central banks around the world already coming off their easy money policies will likely corner the Fed into tapering its accommodative policies sooner than expected.

"If you've got food prices, energy prices, shelter prices moving up as rapidly as they are, the Fed's not going to have any choice," he said, predicting that the Fed could signal the beginning of a move to wind down its monthly $120 billion a month pace of asset purchases by this summer. "They can say what they want, but this reminds me to some degree of them saying back in 2007 that the subprime crisis was well contained. Obviously it wasn't."

[May 28, 2021] Bond Traders See a Path to 2% Yields Lurking in US

Can it be wage driven inflation, when there is mass unemployment of the scale that we observer. That's a stupid idea. Commodites driven inflation is possible as oil if probably past its peak, but for now production continued at plato level and cars are getting slightly more economical, espcially passenger car, where hybrids reached 40 miles er gallon.
Notable quotes:
"... The prospect of a rebound to 2% yields on the world's benchmark bond is alive and well. ..."
May 09, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

The prospect of a rebound to 2% yields on the world's benchmark bond is alive and well.

Treasury-market bears found a deeper message within Friday's weak employment report that's emboldened a view that inflationary pressures are on the rise, and could boost rates to levels not seen since 2019. For Mark Holman at TwentyFour Asset Management, the sub-par April labor reading indicated companies will need to lift wages to entice people back into the labor force; he's expecting a break of 2% on the 10-year this year.

That level has come to symbolize a return to pre-pandemic normalcy in both markets and the economy. The wild ride in markets on Friday suggests Holman likely has company in his views. Ten-year yields initially plunged to a more than two-month low of 1.46%, then reversed to end the day at 1.58%. Meanwhile, a key market proxy of inflation expectations surged to a level last seen in 2013.

[May 28, 2021] US jobs numbers " so bad' media thought it was an " error'

May 14, 2021 | www.youtube.com

David James , 3 days ago

The MSM always covers for Sleepy Joe! This is the bull sh-t we have to put up with here in the USA now. It is very sad our News outlets are unable and unwilling to tell the truth and be journalists like you are here! Thank you Sky News Australia for telling it real!


Noodle Hat
, 2 days ago

We're going to have Jimmy Carter 1970's stagflation.


dewwed1965
, 5 days ago

I'm a trucker in Nebraska. I went to Wendy's they were closed, no staff. Went to Taco Bell they were closed to restock because only 2 people showed up to work


Tenderfoot Prepper
, 4 days ago

"Google's algorithms might be covering for Sleepy Joe." GEE, YA THINK???

[May 28, 2021] More Hacks, More Baseless Accusations Against Russia

May 11, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

More Hacks, More Baseless Accusations Against Russia

In January police in various countries took down the Emotet bot-network that was at that time the basic platform for some 25% of all cybercrimes.

Based on hearsay Wikipedia and other had falsely attributed Emotet to Russian actors. The real people behind it were actually Ukrainians :

The operating center of Emotet was found in the Ukraine. Today the Ukrainian national police took control of it during a raid (video). The police found dozens of computers, some hundred hard drives, about 50 kilogram of gold bars (current price ~$60,000/kg) and large amounts of money in multiple currencies.

bigger

Emotet had nothing to do with Russia.

Now the U.S. is accusing Russia of somehow having part in another cybercrime :

President Joe Biden said Monday that a Russia-based group was behind the ransomware attack that forced the shutdown of the largest oil pipeline in the eastern United States.

The FBI identified the group behind the hack of Colonial Pipeline as DarkSide, a shadowy operation that surfaced last year and attempts to lock up corporate computer systems and force companies to pay to unfreeze them.

"So far there is no evidence ... from our intelligence people that Russia is involved, although there is evidence that actors, ransomware is in Russia," Biden told reporters.

"They have some responsibility to deal with this," he said.

Three days after being forced to halt operations, Colonial said Monday it was moving toward a partial reopening of its 5,500 miles (8,850 kilometers) of pipeline" the largest fuel network between Texas and New York.

Biden however is badly informed. There is no evidence that DarkSide has anything to do with Russia. It is, like Emotet, a commercial 'ransomware-as-a-service' criminal entity that wants to make money and does not care about geopolitics.

Yes, a version of the DarkNet software does exclude itself from running on system with specific language settings :

The DarkSide malware is even built to conduct language checks on targets and to shut down if it detects Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Armenian, Georgian, Kazakh, Turkmen, Romanian, and other languages ...

That is a quite long list of east European languages and Russian is only one of it. Why the authors of DarkNet do not want their software to run on machines with those language settings is unknown. But why would a Russian actor protect machines with Ukrainian or Romanian language settings? Both countries are hostile towards Russia. To claim that this somehow points to Russian actors is therefore baseless.

Russia strongly rejected Biden's accusation:

The Kremlin has once again pointed out the importance of cooperation between Moscow and Washington in tackling cyberthreats amid a cyber-attack on Colonial Pipeline, a US company. "Russia has nothing to do with these hacker attacks, nor with the previous hacker attacks," Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Preskov assured reporters on Tuesday.

"We categorically reject any accusation against us, and we can only regret that the US is refusing to cooperate with us in any way to counter cyber-threats. We believe that such cooperation - both international and bilateral - could indeed contribute to the common struggle against this scourge [known as] cyber-crime," Peskov said.

The U.S. seems notoriously bad at attributing computer hacks. It claims that the recent SolarWinds attack which intruded several government branches was also done by Russia. But that attack required deep insider knowledge and access to SolarWinds' computers and processes :

The recently discovered deep intrusion into U.S. companies and government networks used a manipulated version of the SolarWinds Orion network management software. The Washington borg immediately attributed the hack to Russia. Then President Trump attributed it to China. But none of those claims were backed up by facts or known evidence.

The hack was extremely complex, well managed and resourced, and likely required insider knowledge. To this IT professional it 'felt' neither Russian nor Chinese. It is far more likely, as Whitney Webb finds, that Israel was behind it .

Indeed - the programmers of an Israeli company, recently bought up by SolarWinds, had all the necessary access for such a hack. However the U.S. sanctioned Russia over the SolarWinds hack without providing any evidence of its involvement.

If the U.S. continues to blame Russia without any evidence for each and every hack there may come a time when Russia stops caring and really starts to hack into or destroy important U.S. systems. The U.S. should fear that day.

Posted by b on May 11, 2021 at 17:31 UTC | Permalink


David G Horsman , May 11 2021 17:48 utc | 1

Thanks b. I don't think Russia is going to escalate destructive attacks any time soon. There's no upside.
They might even be reluctant to reveal their capabilities in the Ukraine.
For the moment, mockery is the best remedy while they up their game.
psychohistorian , May 11 2021 17:56 utc | 2
@ b who ended with
"
If the U.S. continues to blame Russia without any evidence for each and every hack there may come a time when Russia stops caring and really starts to hack into or destroy important U.S. systems.
"

How can you write such assertions that vary from the approach that both Russia and China are taking?....strong defense but no offense.

Now if empire tried to hack into a Russian or Chinese system/network then appropriate takedowns of malicious systems/networks would seem logical....and I expect they know how...but will not do it on the basis of another avenue of empire lies and deceit.

anon48 , May 11 2021 18:20 utc | 3
You should have titled the post "Killing Two Birds With One Stone".
This pipeline is huge, running from Texas through the Southeast and all the way up to New England. It's condition is beyond awful with multiple leaks along the route some of which lose more than a million gallons per month and much more than can be determined since some of the gasoline / jet fuel went into the aquifers. These faults have been well known for decades and although some of the areas are heavily populated no remediation was done. The local outcry recently caught the attention of the press when kids reported a gasoline smell along the pipeline route to the police. The locals demanded the pipeline be closed for repairs and sought answers from state officials and Federal authorities as to why this situation was allowed. To blame the Russians for the closure of the pipeline which results in a surge in prices and limited availability of gas for the summer is an absolute stroke of genius.
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/ncdeq-colonial-pipeline-spill-huntersville/275-70e16fb6-c945-4634-b933-3975d0573f2e
Ike , May 11 2021 18:27 utc | 4
Great article. Russia must be getting so pissed off with the idiots in Washington.The uninformed and easily manipulated Western people surely get the governments they deserve.
Paul Craig Roberts highlights this with another bit of truth telling from Tucker Carlson
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/05/11/the-proof-is-in-tony-fauci-is-responsible-for-the-creation-of-the-covid-19-virus/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_proof_is_in_tony_fauci_is_responsible_for_the_creation_of_the_covid_19_virus&utm_term=2021-05-11
DG , May 11 2021 18:43 utc | 5
@all

I need to ask this: What do you think about the vaccination of children?

...

Josh , May 11 2021 18:44 utc | 6
It is odd that certain elements of the us intelligence community, along with negative factions within the us political establishment, continue to absolutely refuse to enter into verifiable and mutually binding international agreements on cyber security with exactly the nation states that they accuse (without evidence) of malicious activity in the same sphere, while at the same time operating in this field in an openly declared hostile manner under the secrecy deemed necessary for 'national security'.

[May 25, 2021] Watch- Tucker Carlson Blasts Fauci, WHO, Media For Lying About COVID Lab Leak For A Year

May 25, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

After Russiagate the credibility of CIA is below zero. So this looks like a part of propaganda compaign against China.

"Yet somehow Tony Fauci didn't know this Can we really believe that? No, of course, we can't," Carlson continued, adding "right around the time those Chinese researchers became the world's first COVID patients, the government of Thailand contacted the CDC and Tony Fauci's office to say its intelligence service had picked up 'biological anomalies' around the lab in Wuhan. In other words, there had been a leak."

ay_arrow

AUS-AUD 8 hours ago (Edited)

If fauci funded the wuhan lab then the US funded the wuhan lab.

popeye 6 hours ago

There has been no new credible information released in the past two months pertaining to the origin of SARS-Cov-2. US Intelligence is not a credible source (lying & deception are the tradecraft of espionage). All I see is media narrative spin based on conjecture that you can guarantee has political origins.

Yet Americans, who complain incessantly about the dishonesty of their media, credulously swallow the narrative fed to them without analysis or critique. Stupid. You think you are independent rebels, when you are in reality manipulated sheep, and oh so easily manipulated.

Lets be clear - ZH is now a part of the narrative machine.

SurfingUSA 4 hours ago (Edited)

Can't make inferences????

The Wuhan lab is just the fall guy here.

  • The virus,
  • the lab (or Army games) release,
  • the election impact ...

ALL either Made in the (((USA))) or close to it.

Justin Timberbieber 8 hours ago

Yep, just the CCP. No western involvement whatsoever.

E5 8 hours ago

Until you trace the scientists back to UNC. Then you see that the actual virus they accelerated came from the US.

Heimdall - Torwart von Assguard 6 hours ago

AND Canada

Ted K. 6 hours ago

The Winnipeg lab of the fully infiltrated Canada is indeed a piece of the puzzle.

Herdee 5 hours ago

And Ft. Detrick

RedNemesis 6 hours ago (Edited)

Okay. They accelerated and released a virus obtained from the US. So is the US responsible for a country turning yellow cake uranium mined in Nevada into a nuclear weapon?

truth or go home 5 hours ago

Yes, if the US gives them the recipe and then pays them to develop it.

And if the US did that to get around a law that makes it illegal to do makes it even worse - which is exactly what happened.

SteveNYC 7 hours ago

I'm going with the "populism" route. Stopping populist governments in their tracks has always proven reason enough for panic and overkill from TPTB:

- USA

- Brazil

- India

<< Primary targets.

Heimdall - Torwart von Assguard 6 hours ago

Poland

Hungary

Venezuela

Brazil

popeye 6 hours ago

Most Americans have never left their country, many have never left their state, and few seem to have an education. You can't expect them to know much about anything outside the US. Basically a flat earth mentality - "the world consists only of what I can see".

junction 8 hours ago

The only certainty is that all the major facts are lies.

Jolt 5 hours ago

You're on the right track, "junction", but be aware that the virus is just an ordinary flu/corona virus that isn't deadly for the vast majority of humans. The real culprit, the biggest tool for creating the worldwide "emergency" is the PCR test, which is 100% fraudulent. This is by design, thanks to the pharmaceuticals.

williambanzai7 PREMIUM 8 hours ago remove link

No Tucker, if you just want to blame the whole thing on China you are missing the punchline: Fauci

tion PREMIUM 8 hours ago (Edited) remove link

It's all an assortment of narratives and partial truths. Tucker points the finger at China without mentioning how Fauci was funding Gain of Function work at the Wuhan lab. Here is just one example of people from that lab using an HIV splice to increase transmissibility of a pathogen to humans.

https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/82/4/1899.full.pdf

In this study, we investigated the receptor usage of the SL-CoV S by combining a human immunodeficiency virus-based pseudovirus system with cell lines expressing the ACE2 molecules of human, civet, or horseshoe bat. In addition to full-length S of SL-CoV and SARS-CoV, a series of S chimeras was constructed by inserting different sequences of the SARS-CoV S into the SL-CoV S backbone. Several important observations were made from this study. First, the SL-CoV S was unable to use any of the three ACE2 molecules as its receptor. Second, the SARS-CoV S failed to enter cells expressing the bat ACE2. Third, the chimeric S covering the previously defined receptor-binding domain gained its ability to enter cells via human ACE2, albeit with different efficiencies for different constructs. Fourth, a minimal insert region (amino acids 310 to 518) was found to be sufficient to convert the SL-CoV S from non-ACE2 binding to human ACE2 binding , indicating that the SL-CoV S is largely compatible with SARS-CoV S protein both in structure and in function.

Journal of Virology, February 2008

And by the way let's not pretend that dear Donald aka President Kushner's FIL didn't also know about Fauci's questionable involvement with unethical gain of function research at this lab before appointing him and the PEPFAR mafia to head the Covid taskforce, putting the foxes in charge of guarding the hen house so to speak.

TheAlmightyCorndawg 8 hours ago

Which is precisely why Tucker is Operation Mockingbird.

Billy the Poet 7 hours ago (Edited)

Then show me solid evidence that what you say is true. You do have film of Tucker working with the CIA, right?

2+2 ≠ 5 8 hours ago remove link

Huh?

Tucker has NEVER "supported the election hoax".

In fact, Tucker is one of the very few on MSM to continually call for proper voting audits of the 2020 election, and he repeatedly highlights the obvious fraud that took place.

ay_arrow
GoodyGumdrops 8 hours ago

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Election fraud has been happening in the US for decades.

The only thing new this time around is they decided to mock the American people openly, so that they can never claim ignorance again about the corruption.

The plandemic is the real worldwide atrocity being played out right now before our eyes.

asteroids 8 hours ago

The heads of the NIH and the CDC have been caught lying. Therefore both agencies have NO credibility and have lost the trust of the people. ...

Flying Monkees 8 hours ago

Imagine being a total POS like Fauci who would destroy the freedom and liberties of his fellow Americans just so he can line his own pockets...

[May 24, 2021] The Fed Has Lost Control -- John Williams Warns Of Hyperinflation In 2022

I agree that Fed might lose the control: much depends on the continuation of the status of the dollar as the main reserve currency. If this position continue to weaken all beta are off.
May 24, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

What would happen to the financial system if the Fed stopped printing massive amounts of money for stimulus and debt service? Williams explains,

" You could see financial implosion by preventing liquidity being put into the system. The system needs liquidity (freshly created dollars) to function. Without that liquidity, you would see more of an economic implosion than you have already seen. In fact, I will contend that the headline pandemic numbers have actually been a lot worse than they have been reporting. It also means we are not recovering quite as quickly. The Fed needs to keep the banking system afloat. They want to keep the economy afloat. All that requires a tremendous influx of liquidity in these difficult times."

So, is the choice inflation or implosion? Williams says, "That's the choice, and I think we are going to have a combination of both of them. .."

" I think we are eventually headed into a hyperinflationary economic collapse. It's not that we haven't been in an economic collapse already, we are coming back some now. . . . The Fed has been creating money at a pace that has never been seen before. You are basically up 75% (in money creation) year over year. This is unprecedented. Normally, it might be up 1% or 2% year over year. The exploding money supply will lead to inflation. I am not saying we are going to get to 75% inflation -- yet, but you are getting up to the 4% or 5% range, and you are soon going to be seeing 10% range year over year. . . . The Fed has lost control of inflation. "

And remember, when the Fed has to admit the official inflation rate is 10%, John Williams says, "When they have to admit the inflation rate is 10%, my number is going to be up to around 15% or higher. My number rides on top of their number."

Right now, the Shadowstat.com inflation rate is above 11%. That's if it were calculated the way it was before 1980 when the government started using accounting gimmicks to make inflation look less than it really is. The Shadowstats.com number cuts out all the accounting gimmicks and is the true inflation rate that most Americans are seeing right now, not the "official" 4.25% recently reported.

Williams says the best way to fight the inflation that is already here is to buy tangible assets. Williams says,

"Canned food is a tangible asset, and you can use it for barter if you have to. . . . Physical gold and silver is the best way to protect your buying power over time."

Gold may be a bit expensive for most, but silver is still relatively cheap. Williams says, "Everything is going to go up in price."

When will the worst inflation be hitting America? Williams predicts,

"I am looking down the road, and in early 2022, I am looking for something close to a hyperinflationary circumstance and effectively a collapsed economy."

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with John Williams, founder of ShadowStats.com.


2 play_arrow 1

Nikki Alexis 7 minutes ago

John Williams warning about hyperinflation is like Peter Schitt telling me stocks are going to crash. It's coming, it's coming! Boy crying wolf.

Cautiously Pessimistic 59 minutes ago

Accounting Gimmicks. Election Gimmicks. Gender Gimmicks. Science Gimmicks. Rule of Law Gimmicks.

America has become one big fun house of gimmicks.

Time for a RESET.

NoDebt 54 minutes ago remove link

Yeah, the Reset Gimmick. Where they fundamentally transform themselves into a permanent position of power. Never mind that they'll kill millions to achieve it.

Samual Vimes 47 minutes ago (Edited)

What about gutting primary dealers by buying T bills directly ?

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/fed-prepares-go-direct-liquidity

[May 18, 2021] Who Bought the $4.7 Trillion of Treasury Securities Added Since March 2020 to the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt-

May 18, 2021 | wolfstreet.com

Who Bought the $4.7 Trillion of Treasury Securities Added Since March 2020 to the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt? by Wolf Richter • May 17, 2021 • 119 Comments The Fed did. Nearly everyone did. Even China nibbled again. Here's who holds that monstrous $28.1 trillion US National Debt. By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET .

The US national debt has been decades in the making, was then further fired up when the tax cuts took effect in 2018 during the Good Times. But starting in March 2020, it became the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt. Since that moment 15 months ago, it spiked by $4.7 trillion, to $28.14 trillion, amounting to 128% of GDP in current dollars:

But who bought this $4.7 trillion in new debt?

We can piece this together through the first quarter in terms of the categories of holders: Foreign buyers as per the Treasury International Capital data, released this afternoon by the Treasury Department; the purchases by the Fed as per its weekly balance sheet; the purchases by the US banks as per the Federal Reserve Board of Governors bank balance-sheet data; and the purchases by US government entities, such as US government pension funds, as per the Treasury Department's data on Treasury securities.

Foreign creditors of the US.

Japan , the largest foreign creditor of the US, dumped $18 billion of US Treasuries in March, reducing its stash to $1.24 trillion. Since March 2020, its holdings dropped by $32 billion.

https://664e3285974f21e0f93cbda833cec3c8.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

China had been gradually reducing its holdings over the past few years, but then late last year started adding to them again. In March, its holdings ticked down for the first time in months, by $4 billion, bringing its holdings to $1.1 trillion. Since March 2020, it added $9 billion:

But Japan's and China's importance as creditors to the US has been diminishing because the US debt has ballooned. In March, their combined share (green line) fell to 8.3%, the lowest in many years:

All foreign holders combined dumped $70 billion in Treasury securities in March, bringing their holdings to $7.028 trillion (blue line, left scale). But this was still up by $79 billion from March 2020.

These foreign holders include foreign central banks, foreign government entities, and foreign private-sector entities such as companies, banks, bond funds, and individuals. Despite the increase of their holdings since March 2020, their share of the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt fell to 25.0%, the lowest since 2007 (red line, right scale):

After Japan & China, the 10 biggest foreign holders include tax havens where US corporations have mailbox entities where some of their Treasury holdings are registered. But Germany and Mexico, with which the US has massive trade deficits, are in 17th and 24th place. The percentages indicate the change from March 2020. Note the percentage increase of India's holdings:

US government funds hit record, but share of total debt drops further.

US government pension funds for federal civilian employees, pension funds for the US military, the US Social Security Trust Fund , and other federal government funds bought on net $5 billion of Treasury securities in Q1 and $98 billion since March 2020, bringing their holdings to a record of $6.11 trillion (blue line, left scale).

But that increase was outrun by the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt, and their share of total US debt dropped to 21.8%, the lowest since dirt was young, and down from a share of 45% in 2008 (red line, right scale):

Federal Reserve goes hog-wild: monetization of the US debt.

The Fed bought on net $243 billion of Treasury securities in Q1 and $2.44 trillion since it began the bailouts of the financial markets in March 2020. Over this period through March 31, it has more than doubled its holdings of Treasuries to $4.94 trillion (blue line, left scale). It now holds a record of 17.6% of the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt (red line, right scale):

US Banks pile them up.

US commercial banks bought on net $28 billion in Treasury securities in Q1 and $267 billion since March 2020, bringing the total to a record $1.24 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data on bank balance sheets. They now hold 4.4% of the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt:

Other US entities & individuals

So far, we covered the net purchases by all foreign-registered holders, by the Fed, by US government funds, and by US banks. What's unaccounted for: US individuals and institutions other than the Fed, the banks, and the government. These include bond funds, private-sector, state, and municipal pension funds, insurers, US corporations, hedge funds (they use Treasuries in complex leveraged trades), private equity firms that need to park billions in "dry powder," etc.

These US entities hold the remainder of Incredibly Spiking US National Debt. Their holdings surged by $149 billion in Q4 and by $2.35 trillion since March 2020, to a record $8.76 trillion (blue line, left scale). This raised their share of the total debt to 31.2% (red line, right scale), making these US individuals and institutions combined the largest holder of that monstrous mountain of debt:

The Incredibly Spiking US National Debt and who holds it, all in one monstrous pile:

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? Using ad blockers – I totally get why – but want to support the site? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

[May 17, 2021] Stocks could drop 20% when Fed fights inflation- hedge fund founder

May 17, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

Guzman

May 17, 2021

Inflation fears already roiled the market this week with the Nasdaq falling nearly 2%, but one hedge fund founder is sounding the alarm over a potential 20% collapse that could be sparked by the Federal Reserve signaling an end to accommodative pandemic-era monetary policy later this year.

Satori Fund founder Dan Niles recently told Yahoo Finance that this week's hotter-than-anticipated inflation data coupled with other central banks around the world already coming off their easy money policies will likely corner the Fed into tapering its accommodative policies sooner than expected.

"If you've got food prices, energy prices, shelter prices moving up as rapidly as they are, the Fed's not going to have any choice," he said, predicting that the Fed could signal the beginning of a move to wind down its monthly $120 billion a month pace of asset purchases by this summer. "They can say what they want, but this reminds me to some degree of them saying back in 2007 that the subprime crisis was well contained. Obviously it wasn't."

For their part, Fed officials have remained adamant that a rise in inflation is to be expected as a transitory reality of the economy reopening from the pandemic lockdown. The latest print from the Bureau of Labor Statistics out this week , however, may have spooked investors when it showed consumer prices for the month of April rose at their fastest annual pace since 2008. That inflation metric, which is different than the Fed's preferred Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index , jumped to a 4.2% rise over the last 12 months. The Fed has already signaled it would be comfortable staying accommodative even if inflation in the recovery shoots past 2% as measured by its preferred metric.

[May 16, 2021] Morgan Stanley- This Is The Biggest Threat To The Red-Hot Global Recovery - ZeroHedge

May 16, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

In the US, this translates to a growth environment where GDP will be 3pp above its pre-COVID-19 path by end-2022 and underlying core PCE inflation (adjusted for base effects) rises above 2%Y from March 2022. The Fed, which is now aiming for inflation averaging 2%Y and maximum employment, should remain accommodative. Our chief US economist Ellen Zentner expects the Fed to signal its intention to taper asset purchases at the September FOMC meeting, to announce it in March 2022 and to start tapering from April 2022 . On our forecasts, rate hikes begin in 3Q23, after inflation remains at or above 2%Y for some time and the labour market reaches maximum employment.

What are the risks to this story? Most obvious is the emergence of new COVID-19 variants that resist vaccines. However, I have argued that the biggest threat to this cycle is an overshoot in US core PCE inflation beyond the Fed's implicit 2.5%Y threshold – a serious concern, in my view, which could emerge from mid-2022 onwards .


Portal 4 hours ago

LMFAO!!!

You sent manufacturing and industry to China.

There is no "red hot recovery.". Just a long descent into fascism and communist poverty.

Newpuritan 4 hours ago

The "red hot recovery." they are hoping for is replacing all efficient energy production with inefficient "green" energy. The costs will be astronomical but are hoped to offset the Boomer generation retirement period.

Iskiab 2 hours ago (Edited)

Yea, all these forecasting models are garbage. They're all based on a faulty assumption that trends continue so the growth we see now will continue, plus things will revert back to the trend line. Junk in, junk out.

A more realistic assessment would be there was a bump from reopening, but costs have increased. It will be impossible to get back to the old growth trend line, and expect the low growth of the last 20 years to continue from hereon out. The stimulus will help a bit but not much, most of the stimulus was misallocated.

JH2020 3 hours ago (Edited)

It's the sycophants of the Wall Street/government confidence game, dropping words that, hopefully, lead to buying securities, not selling, though, perversely, any negative truths result in the assumption there will be a new flood of free money, from the Fed, driving margin debt even more vertical, such that one needs a second page for the chart, or a more drastic log scale. (In this economy so red hot interests rates need to be kept near zero, for the remainder of the century, and near daily reassurance the Fed will accommodate anything and everything, whatsoever, anytime a sector gets some heartburn, or a red candlestick gets too large.)

Red hot = FOMO bait.

The "red not" verbiage is comical, reminds me of Hollywood sycophants, that write reviews of some pretend person, some degenerate nobody, "In an unparalleled display of performing brilliance, in this worthy sequel to A Couple Hours of Brains Splattered All Over the Wall, and which only proves his sheer genius, the way he flared his nostrils, while driving in the chase scene, that went two times around the entire city perimeter, in the ongoing lanes...".

ebworthen 4 hours ago

"Red hot global recovery"? ROFLMAO!

That isn't recovery, it is money printing, inflation, and rabid speculation.

hugin-o-munin 4 hours ago (Edited)

Who do these people think they can fool?

This was about the dumbest article by a bank in a long while. Pushing a contrarian lie too hard reveals it quicker than keeping quiet. Someone should remind Morgan Stanley of this age old truth. Real inflation is destroying the USD right now. Ignoring it and pretending otherwise will only accelerate the fall into hyper inflation.

J J Pettigrew 3 hours ago

A little inflation is good for you.

What's a little? 2.5%? For ten years....a flat chart of 2.5% each year... .looks like nothing happened....just 28% off the value of the dollar...thats all.

Sound of the Suburbs 2 hours ago

How does anything really work?

I don't know, I use neoclassical economics.

Everyone tries to kill growth by making the same mistakes as Japan.

Japan led the way and everyone followed.

At 25.30 mins you can see the super imposed private debt-to-GDP ratios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAStZJCKmbU&list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZQLxg24CAiFgZYldtoCR-R&index=6

What Japan does in the 1980s; the US, the UK and Euro-zone do leading up to 2008 and China has done more recently.

The PBoC saw the financial crisis coming unlike the BoJ, ECB, BoE and the FED.

Oh dear, we did what you did in Japan.

Now we've had a financial crisis and are facing a Great Depression just like you.

Japan could study the Great Depression to avoid this fate.

(The US had done the same thing in the 1920s (see graph above), it always seems to happen with neoclassical economics)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

How did Japan avoid a Great Depression?

They saved the banks

How did Japan kill growth and inflation for the next thirty years?

They left the debt in place and the repayments on that debt killed growth and inflation (Japanification)

The Chinese did see the financial crisis coming, but they have reached the end of the line on the debt fuelled growth model of globalisation.

They just need to find out how an economy really works.

As if anyone has got the slightest idea what they are doing.

How does anything really work?

I don't know, I use neoclassical economics.

Sound of the Suburbs 2 hours ago

Everyone tries to kill growth by making the same mistakes as Japan.

European policymakers were successful.

What does Japanification look like?

https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp

(Set scale to max. to get the full picture)

The EU economy hasn't been going anywhere since 2008.

https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp

(Set scale to max. to get the full picture)

It's Japanification

The UK economy has hasn't been going anywhere since 2008.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp

(Set scale to max. to get the full picture)

It's Japanification

Well done, you dimwits.

How does anything really work?

I don't know, I use neoclassical economics.

Sound of the Suburbs 2 hours ago

Why did they think private debt wouldn't be a problem after 2008?

Probably the same reason they didn't notice it building up before 2008.

The economics of globalisation has always had an Achilles' heel.

The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into the debt deflation of the Great Depression. No one realised the problems that were building up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at debt, neoclassical economics.

Not considering private debt is the Achilles' heel of neoclassical economics.

That explains it.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein.

Who do you think you are?

This is what we are going to do, whether you like it or not.

He must be one of those populists.

Einstein was right of course, but you know what neoliberals are like.

Anyone that doesn't go along with their ideas must be a populist.

Sound of the Suburbs 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Not considering private debt is the Achilles' heel of neoclassical economics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAStZJCKmbU&list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZQLxg24CAiFgZYldtoCR-R&index=6

At 18 mins.

1929 and 2008 stick out like sore thumbs.

No one realised the problems that were building up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at debt, neoclassical economics.

Einstein's definition of madness "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result"

Einstein was right again.

He was a clever bloke.

[May 15, 2021] Which organization OPEC or IEA has the most credibility?

May 15, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com

RON PATTERSON IGNORED 05/14/2021 at 7:23 am

The OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report said the world oil supply fell by 150,000 barrels per day in April.

World oil supply
Preliminary data indicates that global liquids production in April decreased by 0.15 mb/d to average
93.06 mb/d compared with the previous month, and was lower by 6.45 mb/d y-o-y.

While the IEA Oil Market Report – May 2021 sais the world oil supply rose by 330,000 barrels per day.

World oil supply rose 330 kb/d to 93.4 mb/d in April and will increase further in May as the OPEC+ alliance continues to ease output cuts. Based on the current agreement, global oil production is set to grow by 3.8 mb/d from April to December. For 2021 as a whole, world oil production expands by 1.4 mb/d year-on-year versus a collapse of 6.6 mb/d in 2020. Canada leads non-OPEC+ with growth of 340 kb/d while the US is set to contract by a further 160 kb/d.

That's a difference of just under half a million barrels per day, (480,000 bpd). That's a huge difference. Which one should we believe? Which organization has the most credibility?

[May 13, 2021] Investors brace for test of nerves as inflation worries mount

Weak analysis. The fundamental factor is the price for energy, not some trivia like used cars and trucks. Teh second dot com bubble will deflate but it is unclear when and whether this is a crash or gradual deplation of worthless junk stocks which enjoyed "profitless" IPOs.
With rising energy prices it is more difficult to keep interpreting high CPI numbers as temporary. But like in the past the USA will fight the rise in energy prices tools and nail. With the full power of their global neoliberal empire.
May 13, 2021 | www.ft.com

... prices for used cars and trucks jumped 10 per cent in April alone, accounting for a large slice of the gains in the overall index.

"It looks like Wall Street is climbing the wall of worry," said Gregory Perdon, co-chief investment officer at private bank Arbuthnot Latham. "The bears are constantly looking for signs that the world is going to end. They come up with all the potential excuses. The reality is that the only question that matters is whether the reopening is going OK or not.

... Notably, while 10-year US yields did rise on Wednesday after the inflation data release, they did not hit new highs.

[May 13, 2021] Inflation Doesn't Have to Mean High Interest Rates - WSJ

May 13, 2021 | www.wsj.com

Inflation is back. The U.S. consumer-price index surged to a 13-year high of 4.2% in April, official data showed Wednesday. The eurozone's figure is a weaker 1.6%, but still a two-year high. The global bond market isn't panicking yet. The pandemic led many distressed companies to slash prices in 2020. Investors always knew that, as the economy reopened, some year-over-year increases would be huge.

The prices of most products haven't changed much . CPI gyrations are mostly down to a few items particularly affected by lockdowns and travel restrictions, such as airfares and restaurant prices, as well as commodities. Excluding food and energy, U.S. inflation in April was just 3%.

... Over the past few decades, for example, CPI figures have mostly been the results of a concatenation of "temporary" trends in different sectors -- the costs of education and healthcare rose nonstop, while the prices of many goods continuously fell. It was different in the 1970s, when an idiosyncratic squeeze in the supply of oil fueled an inflationary spiral that pushed all costs up.

[May 12, 2021] What is the nature of current round of inflation in the USA; after all wages are stagnant

May 12, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

paulmeli , May 12 2021 18:50 utc | 21

"Inflation" in the US is mostly profit-taking and speculation (scalping)

[May 12, 2021] The Energy Crisis That No One Is Talking About - OilPrice.com

May 12, 2021 | oilprice.com

GAIL TVERBERG

Gail Tverberg is a writer and speaker about energy issues. She is especially known for her work with financial issues associated with peak oil. Prior

More Info SHARE Facebook Twitter Linkedin Reddit PREMIUM CONTENT Russia Withdraws Troops From The Ukrainian Border Why The Outlook For Oil Prices Shifted This Week Fighting Continues In Yemen Amid Secret Ceasefire Talks U.S. Natural Gas Production Poised To Soar By Gail Tverberg - May 06, 2021, 5:00 PM CDT Trade Oil Futures Now

We live in a world of half-truth where words are very carefully chosen. Companies hire public relations firms to give just the right "spin" to what they are saying. CEO make statements that suggest that everything is going well. Newspapers would like their advertisers to be happy. Still is at the limit of Moore's law and fither shriking of dier is impossible due to physical limits. One of the key challenges of CPU engineering is the design of transistors gates. As device dimension shrinks, controlling the current flow in the thin channel becomes more difficult. So callled 8mn process (not that this is a marketing not technological term) is possible and now used in production, 5mn is problematic but used for example by Apple in A14 CPU ( iPhone 12) / According to some sources, the A14 processor has the transistor density of 134 million transistors per mm2. 3mn is probably the current technological limit (TSMC is on track for production first 3 nm chips at the end of 2022 Anton Shilov, Anandtech April 26, 2021 ). It is unclear, if 2mn process will be technologically viable or not. So the only way for CPU manufactures to increase the processing power of CPUs is to increase the number of cores.

I We live in a finite world; we are rapidly approaching limits of many kinds. Which creates problem, in some ways, somewhat similar to the world of the 1920s.

[May 11, 2021] Sen. Paul Shreds Fauci Over 'Gain-Of-Function' Funding

May 11, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Paul alleged that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had used a middle-man to funnel money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance - which worked with the lab on bat coronavirus projects.

Paul specifically referenced so-called "gain-of-function" research which in this case has been focused on how to make animal viruses more transmissible to humans - specifically bat coronaviruses .

"Government scientists like yourself who favor gain of function research," Paul began...

...only to have Fauci interject "I don't favor gain of function research in China," adding "You are saying things that are not correct."

Paul pushed back - continuing:

"[Those who favor gain of function] say that COVID-19 mutations were random and not designed by man."

"I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done," Fauci shot back, adding that he's in favor of further investigation, but that the NIH had nothing to do with the origins of COVID-19.

"We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology," he added.

"No matter how many times you say it, it didn't happen."

More from Sen. Paul via Twitter:


Senator Rand Paul @RandPaul · May 11, 2021 Dr Fauci dissembled or tried to hide his long time support for 'gain-of-function' research which creates super-viruses that jump from animals to humans.

ohm 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link

You can't sit on your thumbs and run year long investigations and background checks while thousands are dying .

But that's just the point, thousands were not dying . Instead of seeking out opposing viewpoints, he relied on the bogus Ferguson model that predicted 2 million deaths presented by Fauci and Birx. Plenty of qualified opposing voices were out there - John Ionnides of Stanford for instance. Trump needs to own up to his mistakes and vow not to repeat them.

nodhannum 3 hours ago

How many renminbi do they pay you comrade...as in be "han" or be gone. I've been to a number of seminars given by Fauci back in his HIV days but he is a lying sob now. It's getting hard for the fellow to cover hisw *** now even with the Maserati marxists in power here.

Plus Size Model 1 hour ago

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research

smallblockchevy350 3 hours ago

Rand 2024. I wanted Rand over Trump in 2016 too, but the MSM memed Trump into being the GOP candidate somehow.

replaceme 5 hours ago

So now fauci is on record lying about it, nice.

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 5 hours ago

Yeah. Classic psychopath. He can't help himself at this point.

win95o PREMIUM 5 hours ago remove link

Why would Fauci say the following in 2017:

"There will be a surprise outbreak"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=puqaaeLnEww

YesitsTrue98 4 hours ago

"We are not prepared for a pandemic," Biden tweeted on Oct. 25, 2019, saying the country needs leadership that "mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores."

this_circus_is_no_fun 4 hours ago

At first Fauxi denied the allegation. Then, after Paul cornered him with facts, Fauxi said something like "this is why we did that". So, he admitted that he did what he was denying just a few seconds before . He is literally incapable of telling the truth. I guess he's not called Fauxi for nothing.

adonisdemilo 5 hours ago

Fauci has known from day one what's going on and going wrong. He's up to his neck in it and taking a good look at his body language under questions from Rand Paul, HE'S CONTINUING TO LIE.

chinese.sniffles 5 hours ago

Dr. Fauci:

Have you or your team send or granted permission for work projects to Wuhan or China?

What were those projects?

Why did you send them?

Why did you not do these projects in the USA?

Were any of these projects illegal in the USA?

etc. simple line of questioning, let him perjure himself.

thezone 5 hours ago

Fauci (the politician) knew to not write a check out to the lab directly. It was great to hear Dr Paul bring up EcoHealth. A shell company to facilitate.

surfer4444 5 hours ago

Exactly, blame it on the sub contractor....an old game and the elite are using it well

radical-extremist 5 hours ago remove link

Fauci knows full well the story in the Democrat State News media will be about how he was ATTACKED by Rand Paul, and not about him lying under oath about funding the Wuhan Lab.

chiquita 5 hours ago

This information has been out for a while if you follow War Room, Steve Hilton, and some other sources. Peter Navarro has been hammering at Fauci relentlessly for the last few months and now the MSM is going after Navarro, trying to discredit him. Gee, I wonder why when it looks like the truth about Fauci is falling apart.

What a mess_man 4 hours ago (Edited)

Tucker blew this wide open last night. Of course lots of us here knew all this many months ago. Fauci is lying through his teeth here, and both he and Daszak are deep in the Chicom's pockets. As Tucker said, in a functioning world there would be a criminal investigation. Instead Biden and Co. kiss his *ss and make him our foremost authority on Covid and vaccines. Clown world for sure.

Meatballs 3 hours ago (Edited)

Actually, Saagar beat Tucker to the punch. Either way, the unraveling has begun.

https://youtu.be/6Pk0wLN5uuU

vic and blood PREMIUM 2 hours ago remove link

Don't let the bioweapon profiteer, Daszak, off the hook.

Both greedy psychopaths should hang for their crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, we have no business sharing infectious disease technology with China, even if they could run a lab properly.

Itinerant 4 hours ago

This story is about 14 months old, though not for the MSM.

Actual documentation of the grants from the NIH via the Eco Alliance have been circulating in the public domain for all that time. In it they exactly describe the gain-of-function research that is being outsourced to China, the viruses involved, the methods, the type of experiments, and the aims of the research ... exactly and technically.

There is no room for caveats, or 'allege' or interpretation or anything like that.
The evidence is rock hard and crystal clear.

toady 4 hours ago

Yet there are no prosecutions.

dogbert8 5 hours ago remove link

Finally, the unmasking (pun intended) of Fauci has started.

bsdetector 5 hours ago

Just listened to the questions and answers. Fauci qualifies his answers with information that was not sought in the questions. His answers change the character of his denials... "we did not fund GOF research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

OK Dr. Fauci, please identify the viruses that you did fund for GOF research at the Institute.

Jack Mayorhaufer 5 hours ago

master gaslighters once they reach certain status and paygrade on the Hill

novictim 2 hours ago remove link

"I don't know how many times I can say it? We did not fund gain of function research to be done in the Wuhan Institute of Virology ...(under his breath) because we funded Eco Health Alliance/Peter Daszak which granted the research funding to do gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

CleeTorres 2 hours ago

A simple internet search shows Fauci is lying about funding for this research. But he knows the media won't do their jobs.

Onthebeach6 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Let me assist Dr Fauci with the truth.

Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan

Dr Christina Lin

April 2020

"A U.S. NIH-funded $3.7 million project was approved by Trump's Covid-19 advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci in 2015, after the Obama White House imposed a ban on 'monster-germ' research. In October 2014, the federal government declared a moratorium on gain-of-function research to weaponize viruses related to influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). As a result, the research was outsourced to China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is currently at the center of scrutiny for the Covid-19 pandemic."

https://www.ispsw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/689_Lin.pdf

boyplunger7777 4 hours ago remove link

Fauci looks very nervous . Perhaps why he has been so adamant about constantly moving the goalposts? If you were guilty of something wouldn't you keep changing the focus and appear to be very helpful and concerned?

Max21c 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Which people in & around the National Security Council, CIA, and Pentagon are involved in this attempt to gain access, penetrate and spy on the PLA Biological Weapons/Warfare programs via funding mechanisms route? Which people had contact with this institute and programs and what if anything did the spy games produce?

When are they in Washington going to establish civilian rule over the US military and CIA and National Security Council?

When are they going to knock off these silly spy games and spy world operations off and stop this nonsense which produces zero positive results?

What did the gangsters on the Intelligence/Spy Committees in Congress know? What did the gangsters atop the Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council know?

Which Washingtonian assholes are going to go to prison for this boomerang disaster?

How many other groups similar to "EcoHealth Alliance" operate as part of the US/UK intelligence "community" and what other stupid stuff are the idiots mixed up in?

TheRapture 3 hours ago remove link

There is a great deal of evidence (NIH, State Dept grants to offshore USA bioweapons research, Bat Lady was the protege of Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC who has been doing coronavirus bioweapon research for more then twenty years, initial and simultaneous infections in Wuhan at different locations suggesting an intentional release, etc., etc., etc.) And of course, Trump had motive, opportunity and means to stage a false flag to destroy China's economy and damage China's political relations with other countries.

It is likely the USA, no doubt using a CIA proxy, released SARS-CoV-2 in simultaneously in multiple locations in Wuhan. The evidence is substantial. But most Americans can't bring themselves to stare down that particular rabbit hole.

WorkingClassMan 3 hours ago

I'd rather an honest CCP commie ruling the roost than those traitors anyway.

"If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it."
― Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

sarret PREMIUM 3 hours ago

Fauci is such a liar, pulling school kid mentality out of a hat to answer serious questions. Likely in his mind he knows it all to be true but since the correct name is 中国科学院武汉病毒研究所 then unless you say that name, or the exact name of the exact subsidiary that was funding or was being funded, then it is not correct and therefore he can answer the question incorrectly without calling himself a liar internally and without saying what the error was in the question that led him to be able to this.

In all respects he just disregards the spirit of the question when he knows full well that he is in the wrong, but denies it every single time based on some concocted fabrication in his mind that the question is not precise enough to nail him to the cross.

Completely disingenuous, can't trust a word he says.

Fish Gone Bad 4 hours ago

Lawyer speak:

We have not funded gain of function research on this virus

They funded all kinds of gain of function on all kinds of permutations of the virus, just not THIS virus.

radical-extremist 5 hours ago remove link

Fauci is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of men in San Francisco by covering up Bath Houses as the origin of the spread of AIDS...for Mayor Diane Feinstein's political career. No one dares talk about this today.

the Mysterians 5 hours ago

"I did not have sex with that woman!"

Flying Monkees 5 hours ago (Edited)

What could possibly be the reason for gain-of-function research if not bio-warfare?

These evil, irresponsible, arrogant a-holes need to pay.

Posa 5 hours ago

The Eco-Alliance grant from Fauci's NIAID states

We will use S [ie the Spike Protein that makes the SC-2 virus highly infectious] protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.

That has been interpreted as a commitment to Gain of Function research on the Spike Protein which is the key to turning SARS into a virulently transmissible pathogen.

surfer4444 5 hours ago remove link

Exactly...im just baffled how this PoS can blatantly lie to a Senate committee and get away with it...there is zero accountability in our government...end times

Posa 5 hours ago

Fauci can lie because his audience is a convention of lazy, cowardly , illiterate dunces. If Rand Paul were serious he would have had the damn grant in front of him and read the same quotes as I provided in this post. PAul would have held these hearings last year when his Party controlled the Senate.

Posa 4 hours ago

NOTE: This post was censored by The Hill. Typical free speech in America.

George Bayou 5 hours ago

"11 labs in the US create these super-viruses in the US and one of them collaborated with Wuhan Virology Inst -- Fauci has supported NIH funds for all these labs!"

Why is this a-hole still working?

notfeelinthebern 4 hours ago (Edited)

Yap, yap,. yap. Another dog and pony show and the show is painfully old. They parade personage after personage before congress and ask lots of questions. The swamp rats in the hot seat lie by omission and with sleight of hand answers and when done with the act walk away with smug faces....The show must go on.

George Bayou 5 hours ago

Here's an interesting article on Dr. Baric and what he was doing, mutating virus using serial passaging so that the virus are able to infect a completely different species:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html

Take, for instance, this paper from 1995: "High Recombination and Mutation Rates in Mouse Hepatitis Viruses Suggest That Coronaviruses May Be Potentially Important Emerging Viruses." It was written by Dr. Ralph Baric and his bench scientist, Boyd Yount, at the University of North Carolina. Baric, a gravelly voiced former swim champion, described in this early paper how his lab was able to train a coronavirus, MHV, which causes hepatitis in mice, to jump species, so that it could reliably infect BHK (baby-hamster kidney) cell cultures. They did it using serial passaging: repeatedly dosing a mixed solution of mouse cells and hamster cells with mouse-hepatitis virus, while each time decreasing the number of mouse cells and upping the concentration of hamster cells. At first, predictably, the mouse-hepatitis virus couldn't do much with the hamster cells, which were left almost free of infection, floating in their world of fetal-calf serum. But by the end of the experiment, after dozens of passages through cell cultures, the virus had mutated: It had mastered the trick of parasitizing an unfamiliar rodent. A scourge of mice was transformed into a scourge of hamsters. And there was more: "It is clear that MHV can rapidly alter its species specificity and infect rats and primates," Baric said. "The resulting virus variants are associated with demyelinating diseases in these alternative species." (A demyelinating disease is a disease that damages nerve sheaths.) With steady prodding from laboratory science, along with some rhetorical exaggeration, a lowly mouse ailment was morphed into an emergent threat that might potentially cause nerve damage in primates.

GeneKelly 5 hours ago remove link

"We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,"

Sociopaths can lie without registering on a detector by simply defining terms differently in their cerebral cortex and then answering -- from their perspective truthfully -- "no" because the question doesn't match their internal definition.

So Fauci wasn't funding "gain of function". He was actually funding "increasing the virulence of pathogens" or "enhancing the pathogens' ability to infect different species".

Rand and others will have to ask the question a hundred ways to force Fauci to spill the beans.

DeeDeeTwo 1 hour ago remove link

Tucker finally called Fauci a "criminal" at least twice and said, "In any functioning society Fauci would be investigated."

Txjac 5 hours ago

Fauci also owns the patents on the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines

Everybody All American 5 hours ago remove link

How is it that only one Congressman dare questions Dr. Fauci? One tough questioner. These cowards all need to hang for the crimes they are allowing. If they think we are just going to sit back and watch this man for much longer lead us they are sadly mistaken.

Downhill from here 5 hours ago

Being an MD, Paul has some credibility on the topic. At least educationally and by training, Fauci and Paul are peers.. More than likely other R's are letting him take point.

replaceme 5 hours ago (Edited)

I forgot, that's the same dr daszak that sent the letter to the lancet saying that covid didn't come from Wuhan, and that he had no reason to falsely say this. THAT Dr daszak. Got it.

Wilde1 2 hours ago remove link

https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/anthony-fauci-40-years-of-lies-from-azt-to-remdesivir/

Totally_Disillusioned 2 hours ago (Edited)

"We [NIH/Fauci] did not fund gain of function research to be done in Wuhan." What the weasel didn't say is that the NIH did in deed fund Dr Baric who was working in collaboration with Wuhan with gain of function experiments on the SARS virus. Baric worked with Ft Dettrick and Univ NC researchers who in turn were collaborating with Canada and Wuhan.

Fauci can parse words but he's a traitor and ought to be held responsible along with all others involved with this.

scraping_by 5 hours ago (Edited) remove link

One amendment to the story --

Carlson was quoting a story by Nicholas Wade, former science editor to the NYT. Published in Medium. So it's not just a talking head repeating newsroom copy, as in CNN.

zorrosgato 14 minutes ago remove link

Fauci is part of a flawed system and don't be fooled in believing he is part of any solution. His endorsing of impractical mask mandates along with mandatory vaccinations of the population, using unproven genetically engineered drugs is proof enough.

https://medium.com/swlh/mrna-therapy-a-new-form-of-gene-medicine-5d859dadd1e

Looking4 6 hours ago

wonder which university in North Carolina could possibly be involved in this ???? :) to be sure they would not have a "bat lab"...would they?

[May 11, 2021] Neoliberalism taken to the limit

May 11, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

ay_arrow

Make_Mine_A_Double 6 hours ago (Edited)

But China can do our bio-chemical warfare research cheaper than we can - it only makes sense to use the theory of 'comparative advantage'.

I think outsourcing our bio-chemical weapons program to our existential enemy is really brilliant and saves the taxpayers money...

replaceme 6 hours ago

Did the NIH give that work special oversight, eg no oversight? Yes, yes they did...

[May 11, 2021] Jim Grant- The Fed Can't Control Inflation

May 11, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

...As Peter Schiff put it, CPI is a lie . Grant used the evolution of the toothbrush into its electric form as an example. How do you measure the clear quality improvements in the toothbrush? The government uses hedonics to measure these changes, but as Grant pointed out, this is "inexact and not really a science."

Grant believes that the economy can only tolerate 2.5% real rates. If that is breached, he thinks the Fed will have to resort to yield-curve control. If it does actually try to shrink its balance sheet and sell bonds, it will drive bond yields even higher. Fed bond-buying is the only thing propping up the bond market right now.

In fact, the Fed is propping up the entire economy. There is a sense that the Fed will always step in and save the markets. As a result, we have bubbles everywhere, from the stock market, to real estate, to cryptocurrency.

"These are strange and oppressive markers of financial markets that have lost moorings of valuation," Grant said.

I think the astounding complacency toward, or indifference of, the evident excesses in our monetary and fiscal affairs I think the lack of concern about those things is perhaps the most striking inflationary augur I know of."

Meanwhile, the Fed continues to create money. M1 annual growth is 350%; M2 is growing at approximately 28%.

"Never before have we had monetary peacetime growth this fast," Grant said.

"Tell me who cares."

Grant said central bankers like Powell are guilty of hubris. They suffer from the delusion that they can actually control everything. Grant called the Fed "un-self-aware."

Despite Jay Powell's credentials, he knows nothing about the past and believes he knows everything about the future."

Grant talked about gold , saying it is an investment in "monetary disorder."

To me, gold isn't a hedge against monetary disorder. It's an investment in monetary disorder, which is what we have. We have floating-rate currencies. We have manipulated exchange rates. We have manipulated interest rates. When the cycle turns, people will want gold and silver, and they will want something tangible ."

[May 11, 2021] January Non-OPEC Oil Production Climbs Again

May 11, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com

HHH IGNORED 05/09/2021 at 9:35 am

Yields on the US 10 year formed a bullish hammer within consolidation on Friday. Suggests that yields are headed to 2% or above. It suggests that the move higher is now. Higher yields will lead to stronger dollar. Might be the beginning of where price inflation becomes a drag on economy as yields rise on debt. And as long as price inflation continues yields will rise.

Might put a cap on oil price in near future. Maybe we get another $5-$15 rise in oil price before credit blows up due to rise in yields.

As the cost of credit rises due to price inflation. If you borrowed money at rock bottom interest rates and you now have to rollover debt at a higher interest rate that is a problem for corporate USA.

Anyone that doesn't believe that there will be a huge price to pay for the policy response of Covid-19 is kidding themselves.

Even just on a relative basis. When you expand monetary and fiscal policy by that much in one year. Things tighten on a relative basis as what comes next in the years after is less support.

[May 11, 2021] Consumers Expect Surging Inflation to Crush the Purchasing Power of their Labor- Fed's Survey - Wolf Street

May 11, 2021 | wolfstreet.com

Consumers are picking up on the rise of inflation, and the Fed, which has been trying to heat up inflation, is pleased. The Fed watches "inflation expectations" carefully. The minutes from the March FOMC meeting mention "inflation expectations" 12 times.

The New York Fed's Survey of Consumer Expectations for April, released today, showed that median inflation expectations for one year from now rose to 3.4%, matching the prior highs in 2013 (the surveys began in June 2013).

But wait the median earnings growth expectations 12 months from now was only 2.1%, and remains near the low end of the spectrum, a sign that consumers are grappling with consumer price inflation outrunning earnings growth. The whoppers were in the major specific categories.

[May 10, 2021] Many layers of leverage stacked on top of each other increase the probability of dollar collapse

Notable quotes:
"... "It's just unbelievable that central banks are actively encouraging this." ..."
"... Good point. Many times we look at charts and say WTF but once you normalize to inflation, maybe this is not as bad as originally it appeared ..."
"... reminds me of an abusive husband telling his beaten wife, "See what you made me do!" ..."
"... Hussman says the right way to do that is to look at margin debt to GDP ration, which is a record. GDP is doubling rate is about every 20 years now at nominal 3.5% ..."
"... That description applies to most Wall Streeters and banksters, whose titanic egos are amazing given the fact that most are parasites that contribute less than a woodlouse to society. Still, I dread the coming US debt collapse discussed in this website, which I would term a debt explosion as all of the bubbles start to pop and so many debtors and former creditors (like lessors, banks, etc.) become publicly known to be legally insolvent. ..."
"... I have invested carefully but we will all lose much or most of our savings. ..."
"... It is very irritating to think of the trillions that the banksters' deceptively named, "Federal" Reserve has been transferring to its ultra-rich owners for decades. They will probably even avoid most taxation again. ..."
Apr 26, 2021 | wolfstreet.com

YuShan Apr 18, 2021 at 3:13 am

Exactly. It is way more scary than even Wolf's charts suggest because there are so many layers of leverage stacked on top of each other.

People taking out margin debt on stock portfolios that they bought by re-mortgaging their bubbled houses to buy stocks with record corporate debt, collaterised (if at all) with bubble assets, at record valuations driven itself by leverage etc etc

It's just unbelievable that central banks are actively encouraging this.

historicus Apr 18, 2021 at 5:06 am

"It's just unbelievable that central banks are actively encouraging this."

Indeed. It's QUITE believable that the politicians love the free money and would never be bold enough to say .

"Hey Fed. Your mandates say you are to FIGHT inflation (stable prices) NOT PROMOTE inflation."

Moosy Apr 17, 2021 at 6:13 pm

The amount of margin debt is not a WTF amount if you use the prices-double each 11 year rule of thumb.

This 11 year period is strikingly accurate if you take the price of the New York Times since 1900 (I have a booklet with frontpages of each year and discovered this when looking at the selling prices). Having said that, the current 800B is the same as the previous inflation corrected peaks of 2009 and around 1999.

So yes, Wolf is 100% correct with the prediction on what is coming. It is just not a WTF amount but a history-repeats-itself moment

ru82 Apr 17, 2021 at 11:45 pm

Good point. Many times we look at charts and say WTF but once you normalize to inflation, maybe this is not as bad as originally it appeared

cas127 Apr 18, 2021 at 5:06 am

"normalize to inflationary, maybe not as bad as originally it appeared"

I know what you mean, but then the (major) problem is that the inflation itself shouldn't be viewed as "normal". Kinda reminds me of a gvt program defending doubled budget over 8 yrs because of "inflation" when in point of fact it is likely that G printing/policy has *created* the inflation in the first place (to help fund the program now pointing at inflation).

Also, reminds me of an abusive husband telling his beaten wife, "See what you made me do!"

Old School Apr 19, 2021 at 6:08 am

Hussman says the right way to do that is to look at margin debt to GDP ration, which is a record. GDP is doubling rate is about every 20 years now at nominal 3.5%

K Apr 17, 2021 at 9:10 pm

That description applies to most Wall Streeters and banksters, whose titanic egos are amazing given the fact that most are parasites that contribute less than a woodlouse to society. Still, I dread the coming US debt collapse discussed in this website, which I would term a debt explosion as all of the bubbles start to pop and so many debtors and former creditors (like lessors, banks, etc.) become publicly known to be legally insolvent.

It is unfortunate that it may happen at the worst possible time, when we face an adversary worse and more powerful than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany ever was. I have invested carefully but we will all lose much or most of our savings.

It is very irritating to think of the trillions that the banksters' deceptively named, "Federal" Reserve has been transferring to its ultra-rich owners for decades. They will probably even avoid most taxation again.

I do not like to even think how many Americans will wind up. Remember the saying "There but for the grace of god, go I." Many of us will be saying that a lot in the coming years if we are very fortunate.

[May 09, 2021] CPI Is A Lie! We can't trust CPI to tell us the truth about inflation by Peter Schiff

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The CPI is calculated by analyzing the price of a "basket of goods." The makeup of that basket has a big impact on the final CPI number. According to WolfStreet , 10.9% of the CPI is based on durable goods (computers, automobiles, appliances, etc.). Nondurable goods (primarily food and energy) make up 26.6% of CPI. Services account for the remaining 62.5% of the basket. This includes rent, healthcare, cellphone service etc.) ..."
"... The things the government includes and excludes from the basket can make a profound difference in that final CPI number. Back in 1998, the government significantly revised the CPI metrics. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) admitted the changes were "sweeping." ..."
"... In 1998, the BLS followed the recommendations of the Boskin Commission. It was appointed by the Senate in 1995. Initially called the "Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index," its job was to study possible bias in the computation of the CPI. Unsurprisingly, it determined that the index overstated inflation " by about 1.1% per year in 1996 and about 1.3% prior to 1996. The 1998 changes to CPI were meant to address this "issue." ..."
"... As Peter pointed out, there is a lot of geometric weighting, substitution and hedonics built into the calculation. The government can basically create an index that outputs whatever it wants. ..."
"... Peter said there is a bit of irony in government officials and central bankers constantly complaining about "not enough inflation." ..."
"... They're the ones that are cooking the books to pretend that inflation is lower than it really is. Because what they're really trying to do is get the go-ahead to produce more inflation, which is printing money." ..."
"... And there are other things that hide inflation. For instance, shrinking packaging so there is less product sold at the same price, or substituting lower quality ingredients, or requiring consumers to assemble items themselves. ..."
"... They find different ways to lower the quality and not increase the price, and I'm sure that the government is not picking up on any of that. If the quality improves, yeah, yeah, they calculate that. But they probably ignore all the circumstances where the quality is diminished." ..."
"... The bottom line is we can't trust CPI to tell us the truth about inflation. ..."
May 04, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Via SchiffGold.com,

We've been talking a lot about the specter of inflation. Despite the Fed's assurances not to worry because any price increases we're seeing are transitory, some people are indeed worried. A former JP Morgan managing director warned about inflation and echoed Peter Schiff's view that the central bank is powerless to fight it.

And we're seeing rising prices all over the place, from the grocery store to the gas station. Even the government numbers flash warning signs . But as Peter Schiff explains in this clip from an interview with Jay Martin, it's probably even worse than we realize because the government cooks the numbers when it calculates CPI.

The monthly rises in CPI through the first quarter show an upward trend. The CPI in January was up 0.3%. It was up 0.4% in February. And now it's up 0.6% in March. That totals a 1.013% increase in Q1 alone. The question is does this really reflect the truth about inflation? Peter doesn't think it does.

The government always makes changes to their methods of measuring things, whether it's GDP, or inflation, or unemployment. And they always tweak the numbers to produce a better result as a report card. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lnPrsBzIZsw

Imagine if students in a school had the ability to change the metrics by which they were graded or the methodology the teacher used to calculate their grades.

Would it surprise anybody that all of a sudden they started getting more As and Bs and fewer Cs and Ds? The government always wants to make the good stuff better, like economic growth, and the bad stuff better, like unemployment or inflation. So, they want to find ways to make those numbers little and the good numbers big."

The CPI is calculated by analyzing the price of a "basket of goods." The makeup of that basket has a big impact on the final CPI number. According to WolfStreet , 10.9% of the CPI is based on durable goods (computers, automobiles, appliances, etc.). Nondurable goods (primarily food and energy) make up 26.6% of CPI. Services account for the remaining 62.5% of the basket. This includes rent, healthcare, cellphone service etc.)

The things the government includes and excludes from the basket can make a profound difference in that final CPI number. Back in 1998, the government significantly revised the CPI metrics. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) admitted the changes were "sweeping."

According to the BLS, periodic changes to the CPI calculation are necessary because "consumers change their preferences or new products and services emerge. During these occasions, the Bureau reexamines the CPI item structure, which is the classification scheme of the CPI market basket. The item structure is a central feature of the CPI program and many CPI processes depend on it."

In 1998, the BLS followed the recommendations of the Boskin Commission. It was appointed by the Senate in 1995. Initially called the "Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index," its job was to study possible bias in the computation of the CPI. Unsurprisingly, it determined that the index overstated inflation " by about 1.1% per year in 1996 and about 1.3% prior to 1996. The 1998 changes to CPI were meant to address this "issue."

As Peter pointed out, there is a lot of geometric weighting, substitution and hedonics built into the calculation. The government can basically create an index that outputs whatever it wants.

I think this period of "˜Oh wow! We have low inflation!' It's not a coincidence that it followed this major revision into how we calculate it."

Peter said there is a bit of irony in government officials and central bankers constantly complaining about "not enough inflation."

They're the ones that are cooking the books to pretend that inflation is lower than it really is. Because what they're really trying to do is get the go-ahead to produce more inflation, which is printing money."

Peter said the CPI will never reveal the true extent of rising prices.

And there are other things that hide inflation. For instance, shrinking packaging so there is less product sold at the same price, or substituting lower quality ingredients, or requiring consumers to assemble items themselves.

They find different ways to lower the quality and not increase the price, and I'm sure that the government is not picking up on any of that. If the quality improves, yeah, yeah, they calculate that. But they probably ignore all the circumstances where the quality is diminished."

The bottom line is we can't trust CPI to tell us the truth about inflation.

[May 09, 2021] 4 surprising stocks Goldman Sachs thinks could triumph over inflation by Brian Sozzi

Notable quotes:
"... "In a highly inflationary environment, we like the auto parts space with its unique ability to pass-through higher costs to customers given the non-discretionary nature of the category," says Goldman Sachs analyst Kate McShane. "For instance, in 2019, telegraphed prices increases to offset cost pressures arising from tariffs provided an incremental benefit to same-store sales growth and most auto parts retailers cited between 150-300 basis points of tariff-related inflation." ..."
May 05, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

If you are seeking stocks that could perform well during the inflationary environment the U.S. looks to be headed into as it recovers from the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic , Goldman Sachs suggests parking some money in auto parts retailers.

Yes, auto parts retailers.

The investment thesis is pretty straightforward. With mobility across the country picking up (see chart below) as people get vaccinated, cars will likely need more maintenance. That leaves auto parts retailers such as O'Reilly ( ORLY ), Genuine Parts Company ( GPC ), AutoZone ( AZO ) and Advance Auto Parts ( AAP ) in the enviable position of being able to pass inflation in everything from tires to car wax on to consumers and then post strong profits.

"In a highly inflationary environment, we like the auto parts space with its unique ability to pass-through higher costs to customers given the non-discretionary nature of the category," says Goldman Sachs analyst Kate McShane. "For instance, in 2019, telegraphed prices increases to offset cost pressures arising from tariffs provided an incremental benefit to same-store sales growth and most auto parts retailers cited between 150-300 basis points of tariff-related inflation."

McShane rounds out her bullish thesis on auto parts retailers by noting the main sector plays sport price-to-earnings multiples below historical averages. Of the four aforementioned auto parts retailers, AutoZone has the lowest forward price-to-earnings multiple of 18.7 times, according to Yahoo Finance Plus data .

Mobility is back on the move higher as people get vaccinated for COVID-19.

As for which name McShane is most bullish on, that award goes to Advance Auto Parts in the wake of a recent analyst day. McShane made the rare Wall Street move of upgrading her rating on Advance Auto Parts to Buy from Sell.

"Our double tier upgrade " from Sell to Buy " is predicated upon

McShane says.

[May 09, 2021] Inflation Risk Intensifies With Supply Shortages Multiplying

May 09, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

Signs of inflation are picking up, with a mounting number of consumer-facing companies warning in recent days that supply shortages and logistical logjams may force them to raise prices.

Tight inventories of materials as varied as semiconductors, steel, lumber and cotton are showing up in survey data, with manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. this week flagging record backlogs and higher input prices as they scramble to replenish stockpiles and keep up with accelerating consumer demand.

As commodities become increasingly expensive, whether faster inflation proves transitory -- or not -- is the biggest question for policy makers and markets. Rising prices and the potential for a response from central banks topped the list of concerns for money managers surveyed by Bank of America Corp.

Many economists and central bankers, from the Federal Reserve on down, maintain that price gains are temporary and will be curbed by forces such as virus worries and unemployment. Investors remain skeptical, with businesses including Nestle SA and Colgate-Palmolive Co. already announcing they’ll need to raise prices.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, a former Fed chair, entered the debate on Tuesday when she ruffled markets with the observation that rates will likely rise as government spending ramps up. She later clarified she was neither predicting nor recommending an increase.

The Bloomberg Commodity Spot Index, which tracks 23 raw materials, has risen to its highest level in almost a decade. That has pushed a gauge of global manufacturing output prices to its highest point since 2009, and U.S. producer prices to levels not seen since 2008, according to data from JPMorgan Chase & Co. and IHS Markit. JPMorgan analysts also estimate non-food and energy import prices in the biggest economies rose almost 4% in the first quarter, the most in three years.

“Risk clearly leans to the upside in the current environment,†said John Mothersole, pricing and purchasing research director at IHS Markit. “The surge in commodity prices over the past year now guarantees higher goods-price inflation this summer.â€

[May 09, 2021] Kolanovic Warns Most Money Managers at Risk of Inflation Shock

May 09, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

Money managers who’ve spent the bulk of their careers profiting from deflationary trends need to quickly switch gears or risk an “inflation shock†to their portfolios, warns JPMorgan Chase & Co. chief global markets strategist Marko Kolanovic.

“Many of today’s investment managers have never experienced a rise in yields, commodities, value stocks, or inflation in any meaningful way,†Kolanovic wrote in a report Wednesday. “A significant shift of allocations towards growth, ESG and low volatility styles over the past decade, all of which have negative correlation to inflation, left most portfolios vulnerable.â€

After staging a powerful rally since November amid vaccine rollouts and government stimulus, bets tied to inflation -- rising Treasury yields, cyclical stocks and small-caps, to name a few -- have taken pause in recent weeks. While that has sparked debate over how long the trend will persist, Kolanovic urged clients to adjust to the new regime amid the reopening of the global economy.

“Given the still high unemployment, and a decade of inflation undershoot, central banks will likely tolerate higher inflation and see it as temporary,†he wrote. “The question that matters the most is if asset managers will make a significant change in allocations to express an increased probability of a more persistent inflation.â€

The way Kolanovic sees it, as data continue to point to higher prices of goods and services, investors will be forced to shift from low-volatility plays to value stocks, while increasing allocations to direct inflation hedges such as commodities. That trend is likely to persist in the second half of the year, he wrote.

Based on JPMorgan’s data, professional investors have yet to fully embrace the reflation trade. Take equities, for instance. Both computer-driven traders and hedge funds now hold stocks at levels below historical averages.

“Portfolio managers likely will not take chances and will reposition portfolios,†Kolanovic wrote. “The interplay of low market liquidity, systematic and macro/fundamental flows, the sheer size of financial assets that need to be rotated or hedges for inflation put on, may cause outsized impact on inflationary and reflationary themes over the next year.â€

Story

[May 08, 2021] What's Behind the WTF Spike in Used-Vehicle Prices- My Gut Says, it Can't Last. But if it Lasts, It's Scary-Crazy Inflation -

May 08, 2021 | wolfstreet.com

And if it doesn't last after the stimmies are gone, dealers will sit on massively overpriced collateral, which could get messy.
By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET .

This has been going on for months: Used-vehicle prices spiking from jaw-dropper to jaw-dropper, and just when I thought prices couldn't possibly spike further, they do.

Prices of used vehicles that were sold at auctions around the US in April spiked by 8.3% from March, by 20% year-to-date, by 54% from April 2020, and by 40% from April 2019, according to the Used Vehicle Value Index released today by Manheim, the largest auto auction operator in the US and a unit of Cox Automotive. All heck has broken loose in the used vehicle market:

The price spike has now completely blown by the prior record spike over the 13-month period through September 2009, which included the cash-for-clunkers program that removed a whole generation of serviceable older vehicles from the market.


makruger May 8, 2021 at 1:31 am

Curiously, the St. Louis Fed says used car prices have been pretty much flat for the last 25 years. While the last year of data shows a notable jump in prices, it's apparently been bludgeoned a little with some old fashioned hedonic quality adjustments.

Wolf Richter May 8, 2021 at 8:55 am

makruger,

I'll help you out since I've been covering this for years. So here is the correct link that explains it all, new vehicle CPI and used vehicle CPI (which is what you cited), plus "hedonic quality adjustments."

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/04/13/yup-dollars-purchasing-power-dropped-to-record-low-again-but-more-sharply-and-its-worse-than-cpi-shows/

And some relevant charts from that article:

Reply
Scott May 8, 2021 at 1:34 am

I can see how the supply for these auctions will be tight for some time given that business travel and the resulting car rental usage is way down. In addition, I would expect a lot of corporate car purchasing is down considerably as many sales reps have worked remotely which stalled corporate car purchasing schedules.

[May 08, 2021] Inflation Is More of a Threat Than the Fed Says - WSJ

May 08, 2021 | www.wsj.com

Naples, Fla.

Messrs. Levy and Bordo allude to the sharp drop in the velocity of M2 after the 2007-09 crisis. The actual decline is startling. In the first quarter of 2007 M2 velocity was 1.99, by the first quarter of 2020 it had fallen almost continually to 1.38. In other words, the money stock went from turning over twice a year to under 1.4 times a year. This is the primary reason for the very low inflation over the period.

me title=

Because of the Covid lockdowns, M2 fell even further to 1.13 by the fourth quarter of 2020. As the authors point out, conditions are much different today than in 2007-20 because of boosted bank reserves, households with substantial savings ready to spend and commercial banks in good shape and eager to lend. Unless an economy-wide lockdown occurs, these are very good reasons to believe the velocity of money will increase significantly, just as the 27% surge in M2 since the outbreak of the pandemic works its way through the economy.

This is a prescription for major inflation, perhaps 4%-5% in the next two years. When people say "no way," I remind them that in the early 1980s hardly anyone believed that interest rates would ever return to 1950s levels. While many individuals prefer to trend forecast, never underestimate how inflation (and interest rates) can swing back and forth in ways that amaze.

Em. Prof. Stephen Happel

Arizona State University

Tempe, Ariz.

Messrs. Levy and Bordo might have made an equally compelling case about the Fed being in total denial about the more troubling risk: that its policies have been contributing to a global asset-price and credit-market bubble.

By maintaining ultralow interest rates and by continuing to expand its balance by $120 billion a month, even when the economy could soon be overheating and U.S. equity valuations are close to their all-time highs, the Fed risks further inflating the asset-price bubble. By so doing, it is heightening the chances of a hard economic landing when the Fed is eventually forced to slam on the monetary-policy brakes to meet its inflation objective.

Desmond Lachman

American Enterprise Institute

Washington

Why did the money supply hardly budge in 2008, whereas now it's steadily increasing? The answer is that during the financial crisis the Fed conducted a radical experiment: It paid banks not to lend. By design, quantitative easing shored up banks' balance sheets while interest on excess reserves prevented the newly created money from circulating.

In March 2020, the Fed slashed interest on excess reserves from 1.60% to 0.10%. The benefits of sitting on funds is much smaller, which is why lending has increased.

me title=

Messrs. Levy and Bordo emphasize structural factors in the U.S. economy, such as housing and trade. These matter, but not nearly so much as policy. Inflationary pressures will continue if the Fed's asset purchases increase the broader money supply. But this depends on whether the Fed raises interest on excess reserves to prepandemic levels.

For better or worse, interest on excess reserves is now a crucial policy tool. We can't understand inflation without it.

Assoc. Prof. Alexander William Salter

Texas Tech University

Lubbock, Texas

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the May 5, 2021, print edition as 'Inflation Is More of a Threat Than Fed Says.'

[May 08, 2021] Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII

May 08, 2021 | www.wsj.com

SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII.

The Fed is riding a tiger by the tail and will likely have great difficulty extricating itself from a torrid monetary experiment that is reaching its limits. The U.S. M4 money supply rose an alarming 24% in March alone from a year earlier whereas M1 rose 37%. Notwithstanding these shocking numbers the Fed continues to buy $120bn of bonds each month and the total amount of money in circulation is exploding at an unprecedented 40% rate.

Professor William Barnett of the Center for Financial Stability in New York explained that today's financial collusion between the Fed and the Treasury is much like the 1940s when the Fed served as a fiscal agent for Democratic administrations. The chaotic aftermath? By mid-1947 the rate of inflation exceeded 17% per year - destroying low income households.

(Cont.)
Like thumb_up 5 Reply Share link Report D


Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII

SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII.

The Fed is riding a tiger by the tail and will likely have great difficulty extricating itself from a torrid monetary experiment that is reaching its limits. The U.S. M4 money supply rose an alarming 24% in March alone from a year earlier whereas M1 rose 37%. Notwithstanding these shocking numbers the Fed continues to buy $120bn of bonds each month and the total amount of money in circulation is exploding at an unprecedented 40% rate.

Professor William Barnett of the Center for Financial Stability in New York explained that today's financial collusion between the Fed and the Treasury is much like the 1940s when the Fed served as a fiscal agent for Democratic administrations. The chaotic aftermath? By mid-1947 the rate of inflation exceeded 17% per year - destroying low income households.

(Cont.)

Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII.

The Fed is riding a tiger by the tail and will likely have great difficulty extricating itself from a torrid monetary experiment that is reaching its limits. The U.S. M4 money supply rose an alarming 24% in March alone from a year earlier whereas M1 rose 37%. Notwithstanding these shocking numbers the Fed continues to buy $120bn of bonds each month and the total amount of money in circulation is exploding at an unprecedented 40% rate.

Professor William Barnett of the Center for Financial Stability in New York explained that today's financial collusion between the Fed and the Treasury is much like the 1940s when the Fed served as a fiscal agent for Democratic administrations. The chaotic aftermath? By mid-1947 the rate of inflation exceeded 17% per year - destroying low income households.

(Cont.)

Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII
Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII.

The Fed is riding a tiger by the tail and will likely have great difficulty extricating itself from a torrid monetary experiment that is reaching its limits. The U.S. M4 money supply rose an alarming 24% in March alone from a year earlier whereas M1 rose 37%. Notwithstanding these shocking numbers the Fed continues to buy $120bn of bonds each month and the total amount of money in circulation is exploding at an unprecedented 40% rate.

Professor William Barnett of the Center for Financial Stability in New York explained that today's financial collusion between the Fed and the Treasury is much like the 1940s when the Fed served as a fiscal agent for Democratic administrations. The chaotic aftermath? By mid-1947 the rate of inflation exceeded 17% per year - destroying low income households.

(Cont.)

Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII
Yellen and the Fed are currently repeating one of the most disturbing episodes of U.S. economic history. It happened during the 1940s following the conclusion of WWII.

The Fed is riding a tiger by the tail and will likely have great difficulty extricating itself from a torrid monetary experiment that is reaching its limits. The U.S. M4 money supply rose an alarming 24% in March alone from a year earlier whereas M1 rose 37%. Notwithstanding these shocking numbers the Fed continues to buy $120bn of bonds each month and the total amount of money in circulation is exploding at an unprecedented 40% rate.

Professor William Barnett of the Center for Financial Stability in New York explained that today's financial collusion between the Fed and the Treasury is much like the 1940s when the Fed served as a fiscal agent for Democratic administrations. The chaotic aftermath? By mid-1947 the rate of inflation exceeded 17% per year - destroying low income households.

(Cont.)

[May 08, 2021] President Biden and Secretary Yellen said this week there is no significant inflation

May 08, 2021 | www.wsj.com

President Biden and Secretary Yellen said this week there is no significant inflation

Carlos Lumpuy
President Biden and Secretary Yellen said this week there is no significant inflation.
On May 7 of last year, the metric standard of lumber, 1,000 board feet was $360 . Today it's $1,702 a record high. It broke $1,000 first time ever a month ago on April 7.
That's a 70% increase in lumber in just the last 30 days.
Copper was $2.33 on May 7 of last year. Today, $4.76 a record high.
Steel Rebar was $3,768 on May 7 of last year. Today: $5,483 , record high.
President Biden and Secretary Yellen said this week there is no significant inflation .
Tell that to a builder, his subcontractors, and the buyer of a newly built home this summer.
Food prices for Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, Rice, Milk, Coffee, Cocoa are up double digits in just the last two months.
Vice President Harris ignored a question about inflation with her regular everyday cackle laughing as she walked away.
We are in month four of this administration that prioritizes its war on the wind and the weather.
Figures are from Yahoo Finance
President Biden and Secretary Yellen said this week there is no significant inflation Carlos Lumpuy
President Biden and Secretary Yellen said this week there is no significant inflation.
On May 7 of last year, the metric standard of lumber, 1,000 board feet was $360 . Today it's $1,702 a record high. It broke $1,000 first time ever a month ago on April 7.
That's a 70% increase in lumber in just the last 30 days.
Copper was $2.33 on May 7 of last year. Today, $4.76 a record high.
Steel Rebar was $3,768 on May 7 of last year. Today: $5,483 , record high.
President Biden and Secretary Yellen said this week there is no significant inflation .
Tell that to a builder, his subcontractors, and the buyer of a newly built home this summer.
Food prices for Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, Rice, Milk, Coffee, Cocoa are up double digits in just the last two months.
Vice President Harris ignored a question about inflation with her regular everyday cackle laughing as she walked away.
We are in month four of this administration that prioritizes its war on the wind and the weather.
Figures are from Yahoo Finance

[May 07, 2021] U.S. job growth disappoints in challenge to economic recovery - BNN Bloomberg

May 07, 2021 | www.bnnbloomberg.ca

6h ago

U.S. job growth disappoints in challenge to economic recovery

Olivia Rockeman , Bloomberg News

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.455.0_en.html#goog_688272017 U.S. jobs data in April disappoints

U.S. job growth significantly undershot forecasts in April, suggesting that difficulty attracting workers is slowing momentum in the labor market and challenging the economic recovery.

Payrolls rose 266,000 from a month earlier, according to a Labor Department report Friday that represented one of the largest downside misses on record. Economists in a Bloomberg survey projected a 1 million hiring surge in April.

The unemployment rate edged up to 6.1 per cent, though the labor-force participation rate also increased.

... The disappointing payrolls print leaves overall employment more than 8 million short of its pre-pandemic level and is consistent with recent comments from company officials highlighting challenges in filling open positions.

... While job gains accelerated in leisure and hospitality, employment at temporary-help agencies and transportation and warehousing declined sharply.

...

Labor force participation, a measure of the percentage of Americans either working or looking for work, rose to 61.7 per cent in April from 61.5 per cent, likely supported by increased vaccinations that helped fuel the reopenings of many retail establishments, restaurants and leisure-facing businesses.

Average weekly hours increased to match the highest in records dating back to 2006. The gain in the workweek, increased pay and the improvement in hiring helped boost aggregate weekly payrolls 1.2 per cent in April after a 1.3 per cent gain a month earlier.

Workforce participation for men age 25 to 54 increased last month, while edging lower for women.

[May 07, 2021] Goldman, Pimco Detect Irrational Inflation Mania in Bonds

May 07, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and bond titan Pacific Investment Management Co. have a simple message for Treasuries traders fretting over inflation: Relax.

The firms estimate that bond traders who are pricing in annual inflation approaching 3% over the next handful of years are overstating the pressures bubbling up as the U.S. economy rebounds from the pandemic.

...the overshoot could be as large as 0.2-to-0.3 percentage point. That gap makes a difference with key market proxies of inflation expectations for the coming few years surging this week to the highest in more than a decade. The 10-year measure, perhaps the most closely followed, eclipsed 2.5% Friday for the first time since 2013, even after unexpectedly weak U.S. jobs data.

There's at least one market metric that backs up the view that the pressures, which have been building for months, aren't about to get out of hand and may even prove temporary. A swaps instrument that reflects the annual inflation rate for the second half of the next decade has been relatively stable in recent months.

...The Federal Reserve has been hammering home that it sees any spike in price pressures as likely short-lived, and that it's willing to let inflation run above target for a period as the economy revives.

... ... ...

... Inflation worries have been mounting against a backdrop of soaring commodities prices -- copper, for example, set a record high Friday. It's all happening as lawmakers in Washington debate another massive fiscal-stimulus package.

...

Korapaty calls the outlook for inflation "benign." His view is that the market is overly optimistic with its inflation assumptions, with the greatest mismatch to be found on the three- and five-year horizon. At roughly 2.75% and 2.7%, respectively, those rates are around 20 to 30 basis points higher than they should be, in his estimate.

... ... ...

...Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stirred markets by saying interest rates will likely rise as government spending swells and the economy achieves faster growth. She walked back the remarks hours later.

... "Because we think front-end rates are pricing in a more aggressive Fed path than we believe, we do like shorter-dated nominal bonds, and think there's value there," she said.

[May 06, 2021] Aldous Huxley Foresaw Our Despots - Fauci, Gates, The Vaccine Crusaders

This is starting to look really like staging of "Brave new world..." Today's society is closer to Huxley's "Brave New World" than to Orwell's "1984". But there are clear elements of both. If you will, the worst of both worlds has come true today.
May 06, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Patricia McCarthy via AmericanThinker.com,

In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four , Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.

Huxley generally praises Orwell's novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell's. Huxley observed that the philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less wasteful by other means. Huxley's masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell's with sadism and fear.

The most powerful quote In Huxley's letter to Orwell is this:

Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.


Aldous Huxley.

Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us?

Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental. These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy . There are potential disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are nothing new .

Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots, seizures, heart failure.

As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets, the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning to campus.

The leftmedia are advocating the "shunning" of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask requirements . They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!

Months ago, herd immunity was near. Now Fauci and the CDC say it will never be achieved? Now the Pfizer shot will necessitate yearly booster shots. Pfizer expects to make $21B this year from its COVID vaccine! Anyone who thinks this isn't about money is a fool. It is all about money, which is why Fauci, Gates, et al. were so determined to convince the public that HCQ and ivermectin, both of which are effective, prophylactically and as treatment, were not only useless, but dangerous. Both of those drugs are tried, true, and inexpensive. Many of those thousands of N.Y. nursing home fatalities might have been prevented with the use of one or both of those drugs. Those deaths are on the hands of Cuomo and his like-minded tyrants drunk on power.

Months ago, Fauci, et al. agreed that children were at little or no risk of getting COVID, of transmitting it, least of all dying from it. Now Fauci is demanding that all teens be vaccinated by the end of the year! Why? They are no more in danger of contracting it now than they were a year ago. Why are parents around this country not standing up to prevent their kids from being guinea pigs in this monstrous medical experiment? And now they are " experimenting " on infants. Needless to say, some have died. There is no reason on Earth for teens, children, and infants to be vaccinated. Not one.

Huxley also wrote this:

"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats ."

- Crome Yellow

Perhaps this explains the left's hysterical impulse to force these untested shots on those of us who have made the decision to go without it. If they've decided that it is the thing to do, then all of us must submit to their whims. If we decide otherwise, it gives them the righteous right to smear all of us whom they already deplore.

As C.J. Hopkins has written , the left means to criminalize dissent. Those of us who are vaccine-resistant are soon to be outcasts, deprived of jobs and entry into everyday businesses. This kind of discrimination should remind everyone of ...oh, Germany three quarters of a century ago. Huxley also wrote, "The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human." That is precisely what the left is up to, what BLM is planning, what Critical Race Theory is all about.

Tal Zaks, Moderna's chief medical officer, said these new vaccines are "hacking the software of life." Vaccine-promoters claim he never said this, but he did. Bill Gates called the vaccines " an operating system " to the horror of those promoting it, a Kinsley gaffe. Whether it is or isn't hardly matters at this point, but these statements by those behind the vaccines are a clue to what they have in mind.

There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears , so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.

This is exactly what the left is working so hard to effect: a pharmacologically compromised population happy to be taken care of by a massive state machine. And while millions of people around the world have surrendered to the vaccine and mask hysteria, millions more, about 1.3 billion, want no part of this government vaccine mania.

In his letter to Orwell, Huxley ended with the quote cited above and again here because it is so profound:

Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.

Huxley nailed the left more than seventy years ago, perhaps because leftists have never changed throughout the ages. 61,497 173


Fat Beaver 14 hours ago (Edited)

If i am to be treated as an outcast or an undesirable because i refuse the vax, i will immediately become someone that has zero reverence for the law, and i can only imagine 10's of millions will be right there with me.

strych10 14 hours ago

Welcome to the club.

We have coffee in the corner and occasional meetings at various bars.

Dr. Chihuahua-González 13 hours ago

I'm a doctor, you could contact me anytime and receive your injection.

Fat Beaver 13 hours ago (Edited)

I've gotta feeling the normie world you think you live in is about to change drastically for the worse...

sparky139 PREMIUM 10 hours ago

You mean you'll sign papers that you injected us *wink *wink? And toss it away?

bothneither 2 hours ago

Oh geez how uncommon, another useless doctor with no Scruples who sold out to big Pharma. Please have my Gates sponsored secret sauce.

Unknown 6 hours ago (Edited)

Both Huxley and Orwell are wrong. Neoliberalism (the use of once office for personal gains) is by far the most powerful force that subjugates the inept population. Neoliberalism demolished the mighty USSR, now destroying the USA, and will do the same to China. And this poison dribbles from the top to bottom creating self-centered population that is unable to unite, much less resist.

Deathrips 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Tylers.
You gonna cover Tucker Carlsons show earlier today on FOX news about vaxxx deaths? almost 4k reported so far this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIJQuk-qK2o

19331510 14 hours ago (Edited)

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/death-stats

AGE Deaths

0-24 23

25-50 184

51-65 506

66-80 1164

81-100 1346

U 321

R.I.P.

Joe Joe Depends 13 hours ago

India up in arms about mere 1%

spanish flu was 3%

JimmyJones 9 hours ago

Is the population of india up in arms or is the MSM?

Nelbev 10 hours ago

Facebook just flagged/censored it, must sign into see vid, Tuck also failed to mention mRNA and adenovirus vaxes were experimental and not FDA approved nor gone through stage III trials. Beside deaths, have blood clot issues. Good he mentioned how naturally immune if get covid and recovered, better than vaccine, but not covered for bogus passports. Me personally, I would rather catch covid and get natural immunity than be vaccinated with an untested experimental vaccine.

19331510 14 hours ago

Covid19 links.

Websites:

https://www.americasfrontlinedocs.com/media/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/category/news/

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/

https://www.flemingmethod.com/

https://gbdeclaration.org/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/

https://healthimpactnews.com/

https://www.mercola.com/

https://drleemerritt.com/

https://www.drtenpenny.com/

https://principia-scientific.com/

https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

https://thehighwire.com/

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/ https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/links/general-links/

Video Sharing : https://www.bitchute.com/ ; https://brandnewtube.com/ ; https://odysee.com/ ; https://rumble.com/ https://superu.net

Healthcare Professionals :

Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr. Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff; Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits; Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;

A list of Canadian doctors: https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

Lawyers : Dr. Reiner Fuellmich; Rocco Galati;

Drug Adverse Reaction Databases:

http://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html (Search; Suspected Drug Reactions Reports for Substances) COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414); COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH; COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19); COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S)

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

Research papers :

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ (pcr tests)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ (face masks)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 (lock downs)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670 (child/teacher morbidity)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.20222315v1 (transmission by children)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm (masks/restaurants)

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199 (biased trial reporting)

Covid19 links.

Websites:

https://www.americasfrontlinedocs.com/media/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/category/news/

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/

https://www.flemingmethod.com/

https://gbdeclaration.org/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/

https://healthimpactnews.com/

https://www.mercola.com/

https://drleemerritt.com/

https://www.drtenpenny.com/

https://principia-scientific.com/

https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

https://thehighwire.com/

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/ https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/links/general-links/

Video Sharing : https://www.bitchute.com/ ; https://brandnewtube.com/ ; https://odysee.com/ ; https://rumble.com/ https://superu.net

Healthcare Professionals :

Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr. Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff; Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits; Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;

A list of Canadian doctors: https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

Lawyers : Dr. Reiner Fuellmich; Rocco Galati;

Drug Adverse Reaction Databases:

http://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html (Search; Suspected Drug Reactions Reports for Substances) COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414); COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH; COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19); COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S)

https://www.openvaers.com/

Research papers :

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ (pcr tests)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ (face masks)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 (lock downs)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670 (child/teacher morbidity)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.20222315v1 (transmission by children)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm (masks/restaurants)

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199 (biased trial reporting)

Ultramarines 15 hours ago (Edited)

His making of the gamma and delta workforce was quite prescient. We are seeing it play out now, we all know gammas and delta. There was a really good ABC tv movie made in 1980 Brave New World. Excellent show, it shows the Alphas and names them Rothchild and so on. Shows what these people specifically want to do to the world. I wonder if the ruling psychopaths actually wait for science fiction authors to plan the future and then follow their script.

Mineshaft Gap 10 hours ago

If Huxley were starting out today no major publisher would touch him.

They'd tell him Brave New World doesn't have a diverse enough of cast. Even the mostly likable totalitarian guy named Mustapha turns out to be white! A white Mustapha. It's soooo triggering. Also, what's wrong with a little electronic fun and drug taking, anyway? Lighten up , Aldous.

Meanwhile his portrait of shrieking medieval Catholic nuns who think they're possessed in The Devils of Loudun might remind the leftist editors too uncomfortably of their own recent bleating performances at "White Fragility" struggle sessions.

Sorry, Aldous. Just...too...problematic.

[May 05, 2021] Mark Blyth " An Inflated Fear of Inflation ?

May 01, 2021 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves here. Mark Blyth is such a treat. How can you not be a fan of the man who coined "The Hamptons are not a defensible position"? Even though he's not always right, he's so incisive and has such a strong point of view that his occasional questionable notions serve as fodder for thought. And I suspect he'll be proven correct on his topic today, the inflation bugaboo. Yves here. Mark Blyth is such a treat. How can you not be a fan of the man who coined "The Hamptons are not a defensible position"? Even though he's not always right, he's so incisive and has such a strong point of view that his occasional questionable notions serve as fodder for thought. And I suspect he'll be proven correct on his topic today, the inflation bugaboo. Even though he's not always right, he's so incisive and has such a strong point of view that his occasional questionable notions serve as fodder for thought. And I suspect he'll be proven correct on his topic today, the inflation bugaboo. Even though he's not always right, he's so incisive and has such a strong point of view that his occasional questionable notions serve as fodder for thought. And I suspect he'll be proven correct on his topic today, the inflation bugaboo. By Paul Jay.

... ... ...

Paul Jay
And is the idea that inflation is about to come roaring back one of the stupid ideas that you're talking about? And is the idea that inflation is about to come roaring back one of the stupid ideas that you're talking about?
Mark Blyth
I hope that it is, but I'm going to go with Larry on this one. He says it's about one third chance that it's going to do this. I'd probably give it about one in ten, so it's not impossible.

So, let's unpack why we're going to see this. Can you generate inflation? Yeah. I mean, dead easy. Imagine your Turkey. Why not be a kind of Turkish pseudo dictator?

Why not fire the head of your central bank in an economy that's basically dependent on other people valuing your assets and giving you money through capital flows? And then why don't you fire the central bank head and put in charge your brother-in-law? I think it was his brother-in-law. And then insist that low interest rates cure inflation. And then watch as the value of your currency, the lira collapses, which means all the stuff you import is massively expensive, which means that people will pay more, and the general level of all prices will go up, which is an inflation. So, can you generate an inflation in the modern world? Sure, yeah. Easy. Just be an idiot, right? Now, does this apply to the United States? No. That's where it gets entirely different. So, a couple of things to think about (first). So, you mentioned that huge number of 20 trillion dollars. Well, that's more or less about two thirds of what we threw into the global economy after the global financial crisis, and inflation singularly failed to show up. All those people in 2010 screaming about inflation and China dumping bonds and all that. Totally wrong. Completely wrong. No central bank that's got a brass nameplate worth a damn has managed to hit its inflation target of two percent in over a decade. All that would imply that there is a huge amount of what we call "˜slack' in the economy. (Also) think about the fact that we've had, since the 1990s, across the OECD, by any measure, full employment. That is to say, most people who want a job can actually find one, and at the same time, despite that, there has been almost no price pressure coming from wages, pushing on into prices, to push up inflation. So rather than the so-called vertical Phillips curve, which most of modern macro is based upon, whereby there's a kind of speed bump for the economy, and if the government spends money, it can't push this curve out, all it can do is push it up in terms of prices. What we seem to actually have is one whereby you can have a constant level of inflation, which is very low, and any amount of unemployment you want from 2 percent to 12 percent, depending on where you look and in which time-period.

All of which suggests that at least for big developed, open, globalized economies, where you've destroyed trade unions, busted up national product cartels, globally integrated your markets, and added 600 million people to the global labor supply, you just can't generate inflation very easily. Now, we're running, depending on how much actually passes, a two to five trillion-dollar experiment on which theory of inflation is right. This one, or is it this one? That's basically what we're doing just now. Larry's given it one in three that it's his one. I'd give it one in ten his one's right. Now, if I may just go on just for a seconds longer. This is where the politics of this gets interesting. Most people don't understand what inflation is. You get all this stuff talked by economists and central bankers about inflation and expectations and all that, but you go out and survey people and they have no idea what the damn thing is. Think about the fact that most people talk about house price inflation.

There is no such thing as house price inflation. Inflation is a general rise in the level of all prices. A sustained rise in the level of prices. The fact that house prices in Toronto have gone up is because Canada stopped building public housing in the 1980s and turned it into an asset class and let the 10 percent top earners buy it all and swap it with each other. That is singularly not an inflation. So, what's going to happen coming out of Covid is there will be a big pickup in spending, a pickup in employment. I think it's (going to be) less than people expect because the people with the money are not going to go out and spend it because they have all they want already. There are only so many Sub-Zero fridges you can buy. Meanwhile, the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution are too busy paying back debt from the past year to go on a spending spree, but there definitely will be a pickup. Now, does that mean that there's going to be what we used to call bottlenecks? Yeah, because basically firms run down inventory because they're in the middle of a bloody recession. Does it mean that there are going to be supply chain problems? Yes, we see this with computer chips. So, what's going to happen is that computer chips are going to go up in price.

So, lots of individual things are going to go up in price, and what's going to happen is people are going to go "there's the inflation, there's that terrible inflation," and it's not. It's just basically short-term factors that will dissipate after 18 months. That is my bet. For Larry to be right what would have to be true?

That we would have to have the institutions, agreements, labor markets and product markets of the 1970s. We don't.

... ... ...

So, I just don't actually see what the generator of inflation would be. We are not Turkey dependent on capital imports for our survival with a currency that's falling off a cliff. That is entirely different. That import mechanism, which is the way that most countries these days get a bit of inflation. That simply doesn't apply in the U.S. So, with my money on it, if I had to bet, it's one in 10 Larry's right, rather one in 3.

Paul Jay
The other point he raises, and we talked a little bit about this in a previous interview, but let's revisit it, is that the size of the American debt, even if it isn't inflationary at some point, creates some kind of crisis of confidence in the dollar being the reserve currency of the world, and so this big infrastructure spending is a problem because of that. That's part of, I believe, one of his arguments. The other point he raises, and we talked a little bit about this in a previous interview, but let's revisit it, is that the size of the American debt, even if it isn't inflationary at some point, creates some kind of crisis of confidence in the dollar being the reserve currency of the world, and so this big infrastructure spending is a problem because of that. That's part of, I believe, one of his arguments.
Mark Blyth
The way political economists look at the financial plumbing, I think, is different to the way that macro economists do. We see it rather differently. The first thing is, what's your alternative to the dollar unless you're basically going to go all-in on gold or bitcoin? And good luck with those. If we go into a crushing recession and our bond market collapses, don't think that Europe's going to be a safe haven given that they've got half the US growth rate. And we could talk about what Europe's got going on post-pandemic because it's not that good. So what's your alternative (to the Dollar)? Buy yen? No, not really. You're going to buy Chinese assets? Well, good luck, and given the way that their country is being run at the moment, if you ever want to take your capital out. I'm not sure that's going to work for you, even if you could. So you're kind of stuck with it. Mechanically there's another problem. All of the countries that make surpluses in the world make surpluses because we run deficits. One has to balance the other. So, when you're a Chinese firm selling to the United States, which is probably an American firm in China with Chinese subcontractors selling to the United States, what happens is they get paid in dollars. When they receive those dollars in China, they don't let them into the domestic banking system. They sterilize them and they turn them into the local currency, which is why China has all these (dollar) reserves. That's their national savings. Would you like to burn your reserves in a giant pile? Well, one way to do that would be to dump American debt, which would be equivalent to burning your national savings. If you're a firm, what do you do? Well, you basically have to use dollars for your invoicing. You have to use dollars for your purchasing, and you keep accumulating dollars, which you hand back to your central bank, which then hands you the domestic currency. The central bank then has a problem because it's got a liability " (foreign) cash rather than an asset. So, what's the easiest asset to buy? Buy another 10-year Treasury bill, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. So, if we were to actually have that type of crisis of confidence, the people who would actually suffer would be the Germans and the Chinese, because their export-driven models only makes sense in terms of the deficits that we run. Think of it as kind of monetarily assured destruction because the plumbing works this way. I just don't see how you can have that crisis of confidence because you've got nowhere else to take your confidence.
Paul Jay
If I understand it correctly, the majority of American government debt is held by Americans, so it's actually really the wealth is still inside the United States. I saw a number, this was done three or four years ago, maybe, but I think it was Brookings Institute, that assets after liabilities in private hands in the United States is something like 98 trillion dollars. So I don't get where this crisis of confidence is going to come any time soon. If I understand it correctly, the majority of American government debt is held by Americans, so it's actually really the wealth is still inside the United States. I saw a number, this was done three or four years ago, maybe, but I think it was Brookings Institute, that assets after liabilities in private hands in the United States is something like 98 trillion dollars. So I don't get where this crisis of confidence is going to come any time soon.
Mark Blyth
Basically, if your economy grows faster (than the rest of the world because you are) the technological leader, your stock markets grows faster than the others. If you're an international investor, you want access to that. (That ends) only if there were actual real deep economic problems (for the US), like, for example, China invents fusion energy and gives it free to the world. That would definitely screw up Texas. But short of that, it's hard to see exactly what would be these game-changers that would result in this. And of course, this is where the Bitcoin people come in. It's all about crypto, and nobody has any faith in the dollar, and all this sort of stuff. Well, I don't see why we have faith in something (like that instead . I think it was just last week. There wasn't much reporting on this, I don't know if you caught this, but there were some twenty-nine-year-old dude ran a crypto exchange. I can't remember where it was. Maybe somewhere like Turkey. But basically he had two billion in crypto and he just walked off with the cash. You don't walk off with the Fed, but you could walk off with a crypto exchange. So until those problems are basically sorted out, the notion that we can all jump into a digital currency, which at the end of the day, to buy anything, you need to turn back into a physical currency because you don't buy your coffee with crypto, we're back to that (old) problem. How do you get out of the dollar? That structural feature is incredibly important.
Paul Jay
So there's some critique of the Biden infrastructure plan and some of the other stimulus, coming from the left, because, one, the left more or less agrees with what you said about inflation, and the critique is that it's actually not big enough, and let me add to that. I'm kind of a little bit surprised, maybe not anymore, but Wall Street on the whole, not Larry Summers and a few others, but most of them actually seem quite in support of the Biden plan. You don't hear a lot of screaming about inflation from Wall Street. Maybe from the Republicans, but not from listening to Bloomberg Radio. So there's some critique of the Biden infrastructure plan and some of the other stimulus, coming from the left, because, one, the left more or less agrees with what you said about inflation, and the critique is that it's actually not big enough, and let me add to that. I'm kind of a little bit surprised, maybe not anymore, but Wall Street on the whole, not Larry Summers and a few others, but most of them actually seem quite in support of the Biden plan. You don't hear a lot of screaming about inflation from Wall Street. Maybe from the Republicans, but not from listening to Bloomberg Radio.
Mark Blyth
You don't even hear a lot of screaming about corporate taxes, which is fascinating, right? You'd think they'd be up in arms about this? I actually spoke to a business audience recently about this, and I kind of did an informal survey and I said, "why are you guys not up in arms about this?" And someone that was on the call said, "well, you know, the Warren Buffet line about you find out who's swimming naked when the tide goes out? What if a lot of firms that we think are great firms are just really good at tax optimization? What if those profits are really just contingent on that? That would be really nice to know this because then we could stop investing in them and invest in better stuff that actually does things." You don't even hear a lot of screaming about corporate taxes, which is fascinating, right? You'd think they'd be up in arms about this? I actually spoke to a business audience recently about this, and I kind of did an informal survey and I said, "why are you guys not up in arms about this?" And someone that was on the call said, "well, you know, the Warren Buffet line about you find out who's swimming naked when the tide goes out? What if a lot of firms that we think are great firms are just really good at tax optimization? What if those profits are really just contingent on that? That would be really nice to know this because then we could stop investing in them and invest in better stuff that actually does things."
Paul Jay
And pick up the pieces of what's left of them for a penny if they have to go down. And pick up the pieces of what's left of them for a penny if they have to go down.
Mark Blyth
Absolutely. Just one thought that we'll circle back, to the left does not think it's big enough, etc. Well, yes, of course they wouldn't, and this is one of those things whereby you kind of have to check yourself. I give the inflation problem a one in ten. But what I'm really dispassionately trying to do is to look at this as just a problem. My political preferences lie on the side of "˜the state should do more.' They lie on the side of "˜I think we should have higher real wages.' They lay on the side that says that "˜populism is something that can be fixed if the bottom 60 percent actually had some kind of growth.' So, therefore, I like programs that do that. Psychologically, I am predisposed therefore to discount inflation. I'm totally discounting that because that's my priors and I'm really deeply trying to check this. In this debate, it's always worth bearing in mind, no one's doing that. The Republicans and the right are absolutely going to be hell bent on inflation, not because they necessarily really believe in (inevitable) inflation, (but) because it's a useful way to stop things happening. And then for the left to turn around and say, well, it isn't big enough, (is because you might as well play double or quits because, you know, you've got Biden and that's the best that's going to get. So there's a way in which when we really are trying to figure out these things, we kind of have to check our partisan preferences because they basically multiply the errors in our thinking, I think.
Paul Jay
Now, earlier you said that one of the main factors why inflation is structurally low now, I don't know if you said exactly those words. Now, earlier you said that one of the main factors why inflation is structurally low now, I don't know if you said exactly those words.
Mark Blyth
I would say that yes. I would say that yes.
Paul Jay
Is the weakness of the unions, the weakness of workers in virtually all countries, but particularly in the U.S., because it matters so much. That organizing of workers is just, they're so unable to raise their wages over decades of essentially wages that barely keep up with inflation and don't grow in any way, certainly not in any relationship to the way productivity has grown. So we as progressives, well, we want workers to get better organized. We want stronger unions. We want higher wages, but we want it without inflation. Is the weakness of the unions, the weakness of workers in virtually all countries, but particularly in the U.S., because it matters so much. That organizing of workers is just, they're so unable to raise their wages over decades of essentially wages that barely keep up with inflation and don't grow in any way, certainly not in any relationship to the way productivity has grown. So we as progressives, well, we want workers to get better organized. We want stronger unions. We want higher wages, but we want it without inflation.
Mark Blyth
And it's a question of how much room you have to do that. I mean, essentially, if you quintuple the money supply, eventually prices will have to rise"¦but that depends upon the velocity of money which has actually been collapsing. So maybe you'd have to do it 10 times. There's interesting research out of London, which I saw a couple of weeks ago, that basically says you really can't correlate inflation with increases in the money supply. It's just not true. It's not the money that's doing it. It's the expectations. That then begs the question, well, who's actually paying attention if we all don't really understand what inflation is? So I tend to think of this as basically a kind of a physical process. It's very easy to understand if your currency goes down by 50 percent and you're heavily dependent on imports. You're import (prices) go up. All the prices in the shops are going to go up. That's a mechanism that I can clearly identify that will generate rising prices. If you have big unions, if you have kind of cartel-like vertically integrated firms that control the national market, if you have COLA contracts. If you have labor able to do what we used to call leapfrogging wage claims against other unions, if this is all institutionally and legally protected, I can see how that generates inflation, that is a mechanism I can point to. That doesn't exist just now. Let's unpack this for a minute. The sort of fundamental theoretical assumption on this is based is some kind of "˜marginal productivity theory of wages.' In a perfectly free market with free exchange, in which we don't live, what would happen is you would hire me up to the point that my marginal product is basically paying off for you, and once it produces zero profits, that's kind of where my wages end. I'm paid up to the point that my marginal product is useful to the firm. This is not really a useful way of thinking about it because if you're the employer and I'm the worker, and I walk up to you and say, hey, my marginal productivity is seven, so how about you pay me seven bucks? You just say, shut up or I'll fire you and get someone else. Now, the way that we used to deal with this was a kind of "˜higher than your outside option,' on wages. The way we used to think about this was "why would you pay somebody ten bucks at McDonald's?" Because then you might actually get them to and flip the burgers because they're outside option is probably seven bucks, and if you pay them seven bucks, they just won't show up. So we used to have to pay workers a bit more. So that was, in a sense, (workers) claiming (a bit of the surplus) from productivity. But now what we've done, Suresh Naidu the economist was talking about this the other day, is we have all these technologies for surveilling workers (instead of paying them more). So now what we can do is take that difference between seven and ten and just pocket it because we can actually pay workers at your outside option, because I monitor everything you do, and if you don't do exactly what I say I'll fire you, and get somebody else for seven bucks. So all the mechanisms for the sharing of sharing productivity, unions, technology, now lies in the hands of employers. It's all going against labor. So (as a result) we have this fiction that somehow when the economy grows, our productivity goes up, and workers share in that. Again, what's the mechanism? Once you take out unions and once you weaponize the ability of employers to extract surplus through mechanisms like technology, franchising, all the rest of it, then it just tilts the playing field so much that we just don't see any increase in wages. (Now) let's bring this back to inflation. Unless you see systematic (and sustained) increases in the real wage that increases costs for firms to the point that they need to push on prices, I just don't see the mechanism for generating inflation. It just isn't there. And we've underpaid the bottom 60 percent of the U.S. labor market so long it would take a hell of a lot of wage inflation to get there, with or without unions.
Paul Jay
Yeah, what's that number, that if the minimum wage was adjusted for inflation and it was what the minimum wage was, what, 30 years ago, the minimum wage would be somewhere between 25 and 30 bucks, and that wasn't causing raging inflation. Yeah, what's that number, that if the minimum wage was adjusted for inflation and it was what the minimum wage was, what, 30 years ago, the minimum wage would be somewhere between 25 and 30 bucks, and that wasn't causing raging inflation.
Mark Blyth
And there is that RAND study from November 2020 that was adeninely entitled, "˜Trends in Income 1979 to 2020,' and they calculated, and I think this is the number, but even if I'm off, the order of magnitude is there, that transfers, because of tax and regulatory changes, from the 90th percentile of the distribution to the 10 percentile, totalled something in the order of $34 trillion. That's how much was vacuumed up and practically nothing trickled down. So when you consider that as a mechanism of extraction, why are worrying about inflation (from wages)? The best story on inflation is actually Charles Goodhart's book that came out last year. We got a long period of low inflation because of global supply chains, and because of demographic trends. It's a combination of global supply chains, Chinese labor, and demographics all coming together to basically push down labor costs, and that's why you get this long period of deflation, which leads to rising profits and zero inflation. A perfectly reasonable way of explaining it. And his point is that, well, that's coming to an end. The demographics are shifting, or shrinking. We're going back to more closed economies. You're going to create this inflation problem again. OK, what's the timeline on that? About 20 years? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here? And there is that RAND study from November 2020 that was adeninely entitled, "˜Trends in Income 1979 to 2020,' and they calculated, and I think this is the number, but even if I'm off, the order of magnitude is there, that transfers, because of tax and regulatory changes, from the 90th percentile of the distribution to the 10 percentile, totalled something in the order of $34 trillion. That's how much was vacuumed up and practically nothing trickled down. So when you consider that as a mechanism of extraction, why are worrying about inflation (from wages)? The best story on inflation is actually Charles Goodhart's book that came out last year. We got a long period of low inflation because of global supply chains, and because of demographic trends. It's a combination of global supply chains, Chinese labor, and demographics all coming together to basically push down labor costs, and that's why you get this long period of deflation, which leads to rising profits and zero inflation. A perfectly reasonable way of explaining it. And his point is that, well, that's coming to an end. The demographics are shifting, or shrinking. We're going back to more closed economies. You're going to create this inflation problem again. OK, what's the timeline on that? About 20 years? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here? The best story on inflation is actually Charles Goodhart's book that came out last year. We got a long period of low inflation because of global supply chains, and because of demographic trends. It's a combination of global supply chains, Chinese labor, and demographics all coming together to basically push down labor costs, and that's why you get this long period of deflation, which leads to rising profits and zero inflation. A perfectly reasonable way of explaining it. And his point is that, well, that's coming to an end. The demographics are shifting, or shrinking. We're going back to more closed economies. You're going to create this inflation problem again. OK, what's the timeline on that? About 20 years? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here? The best story on inflation is actually Charles Goodhart's book that came out last year. We got a long period of low inflation because of global supply chains, and because of demographic trends. It's a combination of global supply chains, Chinese labor, and demographics all coming together to basically push down labor costs, and that's why you get this long period of deflation, which leads to rising profits and zero inflation. A perfectly reasonable way of explaining it. And his point is that, well, that's coming to an end. The demographics are shifting, or shrinking. We're going back to more closed economies. You're going to create this inflation problem again. OK, what's the timeline on that? About 20 years? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here? OK, what's the timeline on that? About 20 years? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here? OK, what's the timeline on that? About 20 years? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here? A few years ago, we were told we had 12 years to fix the climate problem or we're in deep shit. If we have to face the climate problem versus single to double-digit inflation, I'm left wondering what is the real problem here?

cocomaan , , May 1, 2021 at 7:24 am

Great piece. He put to words something I've thought about but couldn't articulate: if wages are stagnant, how could you possibly get broad based inflation?

There is no upward pressure on labor costs anywhere in the economy. The pressures are all downward.

You would need government spending in the order of magnitudes to drive up wages. Or release from a lot of debt, like student loan forgiveness or what have you.

Left in Wisconsin , , May 1, 2021 at 2:06 pm

I'm not sure you need wage growth to get inflation. As Blyth notes, most of the time inflation is a currency or a monetary issue. In the 70s, it was initially an oil thing " and oil flows through a lot of products " and then really went crazy only when Volker started raising interest rates. I don't think there is an episode of "wage-push" inflation in history. (The union cost-of-living clauses don't "cause" inflation, they only adjust for past inflation. If unions can cause wage-push inflation, someone needs to explain how they did this in the late 70s, when they were much less powerful and unemployment was substantially higher, than in the 1950s.) One could argue that expansive fiscal policy might drive inflation but, even then, the mechanism is through price increases, not wage increases. You do need consumption but that can always come from the wealthy and further debt immiseration of the rest of us.

Adam Eran , , May 1, 2021 at 2:51 pm

Blythe is one of those guys who is *almost* correct. For example he declares that expectations drive inflation. What about genuine shortages? The most recent U.S. big inflation stemmed from OPEC withholding oil"a shortage we answered by increasing the price ($1.75/bbl in 1971 -> $42/bbl in 1982). In Germany, the hyperinflation was driven by the French invading the Ruhr, something roughly like shutting down Ohio in the U.S. A shortage of goods resulted. Inflation! In Zimbabwe, the Rhodesian (white) farmers left, and the natives who took over their farms were not producing enough food. A shortage of food, requiring imports, resulted. Inflation!

I guess you could say people in Zimbabwe "expected" food"¦but that's not standard English.

JFYI, Blythe is not a fan of MMT. He calls it "annoying." Yep, that's his well-reasoned argument about how to think about it.

As a *political* economist, he may have a point in saying MMT is a difficult political sell, but otherwise, I'd say the guy is clueless about it.

CH , , May 1, 2021 at 9:13 am

Inflation isn't caused by the amount of money in the economy but by the amount of *spending*.

Like the other commenter, I've wondered this too"if wages have been stagnant for a generation, then how are we going to get inflation? By what mechanism? It seems like almost all of the new money just adds a few zeros to the end of the bank account balances of the already rich (or else disappears offshore).

Still, you just cannot people to understand this because of houses, health care and education. One might even argue that inflated house and education prices are helping keep inflation down. If more and more of our meager income is going to pay for these fixed expenditures, then there's no money left over to pay increased prices for goods and services. So there's no room to increase the prices of those things. As Michael Hudson would point out, it's all sucked away for debt service, meaning a lot of the "money printing" is just subsidizing Wall Street.

But if you pay attention to the internet, for years there have been conspiracy theories all across the political spectrum that we were really in hyperinflation and the government just secretly "cooked the books" and manipulated the statistics to convince us all it wasn't happening. Of course, these conspiracy theories all pointed to the cost of housing, medicine and education as "proof" of this theory (three things which, ironically, didn't go up spectacularly during the Great Inflation of the 1970's). Or else they'd point to gas prices, but that strategy lost it's potency after 2012. Or else they'd complain that their peanut butter was secretly getting smaller, hiding the inflation (shrinkflation is real, or course, but it's not a vast conspiracy to hide price increases from the public).

I'm convinced that this was the ground zero for the kind of anti-government conspiratorial thinking that's taken over our politics today. These ideas was heavy promoted by libertarians like Ron Paul starting in the nineties, helped by tracts like "The Creature from Jekyll Island," which argued that the Fed itself was one big conspiracy. I've seen plenty of people across the political spectrum"including on the far Left"take all of this stuff as gospel.

So if the government is secretly hiding inflation and the Fed itself is a grand conspiracy to convince us that paper is money (rather than "real" money, aka gold), then is it that hard to believe they're manipulating Covid statistics and plotting to control us all by forcing us all to wear masks and get vaccinated? In my view, it all started with inflation paranoia.

Blyth explains why housing inflation isn't really a sign of hyperinflation. But the average "man on the street" just doesn't get it. To Joe Sixpack, not counting some of the things he has to pay for is cheating. So are "substitutions" like ground beef when steak gets too pricey, or a Honda Civic for a Toyota Camry, for example. The complexity of counting inflation is totally lost on them, making them vulnerable to conspiratorial thinking. Since Biden was elected, the ZOMG HyPeRiNfLaTiOn!!&%! articles are ubiquitous.

Does anyone have a good way of explaining this to ordinary (i.e. non-economically literate) people? I'd love to hear it! Thanks.

TomDority , , May 1, 2021 at 9:41 am

"There is no such thing as house price inflation. Inflation is a general rise in the level of all prices. A sustained rise in the level of prices. The fact that house prices in Toronto have gone up is because Canada stopped building public housing in the 1980s and turned it into an asset class and let the 10 percent top earners buy it all and swap it with each other. That is singularly not an inflation."
Maybe I am totally off but, I would say"¦. By your definition, inflation does not exist in the economic terminology as inflation only exists if generally all prices go up and a singularity of soaring house prices and education and healthcare do not constitute an inflation because the number of things inflating do not meet some unknown number of items needed for a general rise in all prices to create an inflation.
What I read you to say is that if Labor prices go up " that could lead to inflation " but if house prices go up (as they have) that is not inflation.
Hypothetically " if labor prices do not go up and the "˜nessesities of living' prices go up (Housing and Med) " would you not have an inflation in the cost of living? " I am convinced that economists and market experts try to claim that the economy and markets are seperate and distinct from humans as a science " and that Political science has nothing to do with what they present. Yet, humans are the only species to have formed the markets and money we all participate and, the only species, therefore, to have an exclusive asset ownership, indifferent to any other species " IE " if you can't pay you can't play and have no say.
I submit that one or a few asset price increases that are combined with labor price stasis(the actual money outlayed for those asset price increased products not moving up) " especially one that is a basic to living (shelter) and not mobile (like money) is inflation " Land prices going up will generally increase the prices of all products created thereon.

Chris , , May 1, 2021 at 9:55 am

Exactly my interpretation.

The "transitory" "food inflation" (but it's not inflation since TVs went down!) is no issue. Just eat 2 years from now or a TV instead.

Objective Ace , , May 1, 2021 at 10:23 am

I think there's two things going on here. There's different inflation indicators, and asset prices are by definition never a part of inflation

The main indicator of CPI has so many different things in it that the inflation of any one item is going to have little effect on it. But you can look up BEA's detailed GDP deflator to see inflation for more specific things like housing expenses (rent) or transportation.

So back to real estate/land: real estate and land are like the stock market. They aren't subject to inflation. They are subject to appreciation. There is somewhat of a feedback effect for sure though: Increased real estate prices can drive up inflation. Rent for sure gets driven up, but also any other good that's built domestically if the owners of capital need to pay more to rent their factories/farms etc.

As noted in the article though, capitalists can simply move their production overseas so there's a limit to how much US land appreciation can filter into inflation. Its definitely happening with rent as housing can't be outsourced. But rent is only one part of overall inflation

jsn , , May 1, 2021 at 10:23 am

The point he was making is that the price change in housing is the result of a policy restructuring of the market: no new public housing and financial deregulation.

The price of food is similarly a response to policy changes: industry consolidation and resulting price setting to juice financial profits.

The point is distinguishing between political forces and market forces. The former is socially/politically determined while the latter has to do with material realities within a more or less static market structure.

This is a distinction essential to making good policy but useless from a cost of living perspective.

Starry Gordon , , May 1, 2021 at 11:26 am

One could prevent crossover for awhile, but eventually certain policies are going to affect certain markets. The policy of giving the rich money drives up asset prices, real estate is a kind of asset, eventually rising real estate costs affect the market the proles enter when they have to buy or rent real estate.

If state institutions tell them there is no inflation, the proles learn that the state institutions lie because they know better from direct experience. Once that gap develops, it's as with personal relationships: when trust is broken, it is very hard to replace. Once belief in state institutions is lost, significant political effects ensue. Often they are rather unpleasant.

jsn , , May 1, 2021 at 1:06 pm

Yes. Discussing complexity in a low trust society makes definitions of terms within a discussion necessary.

The same words are used in different contexts to mean different things making a true statement in one place a lie in another.

Skip Intro , , May 1, 2021 at 2:22 pm

Blyth pointed to the lack of systemic drivers of price increases, and how the traditional ones have disappeared. I think one that he missed, that results in a disconnect with the evidence of price increases across multiple sectors, is the neoliberal infestation. Rent-sucking intermediaries have imposed themselves into growing swaths of the mechanisms of survival, hollowed out productive capacity, and crapified artifacts to the extent that their value is irredeemably reduced. This is a systemic cause for reduced buying power, i.e. inflation, but it is not a result of monetary or fiscal policy, but political and ideological power.

cnchal , , May 1, 2021 at 3:23 pm

> . . . The fact that house prices in Toronto have gone up is because Canada stopped building public housing in the 1980s and turned it into an asset class and let the 10 percent top earners buy it all and swap it with each other.

That is a total load of baloney. The eighties were a time when the Conservative government came up with the foreign investor program and it was people from Hong Kong getting out before the British hand over to China in 1997.

I was there, trying to save for a house and for every buck saved the houses went up twenty. I finally pulled the plug in 89 when someone subdivided a one car garage from their house and sold it for a small fortune. The stories of Hong Kongers coming up to people raking their yard and offering cash well above supposed market rates and the homeowner dropping their rakes and handing over the keys were legendary.

It's still that way except now they come from mainland China, CCP members laundering their loot.

Any government that makes domestic labor compete with foreign richies for housing is mendacious.

When a Canadian drug dealer "saves up" a million to buy a house and the RCMP get wind of it, they lose the house. When a foreigner show up at the border with a million, it's all clean.

Robert Hahl , , May 1, 2021 at 9:49 am

Many people who talk about avoiding inflation are speaking euphemistically about preventing wage growth, and only that; dog whistles, clearly heard by the intended audience. Yet they are rarely confronted directly on this point. Instead we hear that they don't understand what the word inflation means, and Mark seems to be saying these euphamists (eupahmites?) needn't be so concerned because wages will not go up anyway. If so, what we are talking about here is merely helping workers stay afloat without making any fundamental changes. Well, both sides can agree to that as usual. Guess I'm just worn out by this kind of thing.

Basil Pesto , , May 1, 2021 at 10:02 am

this is only related insofar as Mark Blyth is a treat, and I shared it last week, but icymi, an excellent interview with him on the European Super League debacle last week , which really was a huge story.

The Rev Kev , , May 1, 2021 at 10:28 am

The thing that I like about Mark Blyth is how he cuts to the chase and does not waffle. Must be his upbringing in Scotland I would say. The revelation that the US minimum wage should be about $25-30 is just mind-boggling in itself. But in that talk he unintentionally put a value on how much is at stake in making a fairer economic system and it works out to be about $34 trillion. That is how much has been stolen by the upper percentile and why workers have gone from having a job, car, family & annual vacation to crushing student debt, a job at an Amazon fulfillment center and a second job being an Uber driver while living out of car.

Skip Intro , , May 1, 2021 at 1:24 pm

That $25-30 wage was keeping up with inflation , if it were keeping up with productivity it would be, IIRC, nearly twice that. It is interesting to see a dollar figure put on the amount you can reap after a generation or two of growing a middle class, by impoverishing it.

cnchal , , May 1, 2021 at 3:41 pm

This is key.

But now what we've done, Suresh Naidu the economist was talking about this the other day, is we have all these technologies for surveilling workers (instead of paying them more) . So now what we can do is take that difference between seven and ten and just pocket it because we can actually pay workers at your outside option, because I monitor everything you do, and if you don't do exactly what I say I'll fire you, and get somebody else for seven bucks.

Praise be the STEM workers. Without them where would the criminal corporate class be?

Every time I listen to the news (without barfing) the story is, we need moar STEM workers, and I ask myself, what do they do for a living?

howard in nyc , , May 1, 2021 at 10:37 am

Blyth is a bass guitar player! The things you learn about people.

eg , , May 1, 2021 at 11:32 am

I think he also plays guitar and drums, in addition to the bass guitar.

Mikel , , May 1, 2021 at 2:02 pm

If that kind of tidbit excites you:
Before going into economics, Alan Greenspan was a sax and clarinet player who played with the likes of Stan Getz and Quincy Jones.

Go figure"¦.

The Rev Kev , , May 1, 2021 at 7:42 pm

Mark Blyth has a remarkable history as well as, well, I will let you read this article about him-

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2006/10/things-ive-learned-prof-mark-blyth-26651

As a tidbit, he has released five or six albums when younger and is into gourmet Indian cuisine.

HotFlash , , May 1, 2021 at 9:04 pm

And Michael Hudson studied piano and conducting . Do failed musicians gravitate to economics? Perhaps for the same reason as my bank manager, a failed bass player (honors graduate from Classy Cdn U in double bass), they see the handwriting on the wall. He told me his epiphany came when he and his band-mates were trying to make cup-o-noodles with tap water in a room over the pub in Thunder Bay where they were playing.

Tex , , May 1, 2021 at 10:39 am

The mental gymnastics to get to "everything needed to survive costs more but wages have not gone up in decades so therefore its all transitory and inflation does not exist" must be painful. How high does the price for cat food have to get before we stop eating?

freebird , , May 1, 2021 at 10:11 pm

Thank you. Most things I buy or am forced to pay for are rising in price. The economists may enjoy the article, but here in Topeka, it's not flying.

KLG , , May 1, 2021 at 10:49 am

Yes! "The Hamptons are not a defensible position" ranks right up there with "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of (neoliberal) capitalism" by Mark Fisher (and F. Jameson?).

Jeff W , , May 1, 2021 at 5:03 pm

"The Hamptons are not a defensible position"

From Mark Blyth's 2016 interview with AthensLive here .

Return of the Bride of Joe Biden , , May 1, 2021 at 12:12 pm

Does anybody here have knowledge of how much hedonic adjustments influence our official measures of inflation?

chuck roast , , May 1, 2021 at 12:30 pm

Very good, Mark. This leads to the next Q. How do we maintain aggregate demand? The rich guys increasingly Hoover everything up and pay no taxes. So, there is no T. Is the only way to get cash and avoid deflation deficit spending by the G? There is no I worth a damn. (X-M) is a total drain on everything since it's all M in the US and no X. The deficits will have to go out of sight in the future.

You say that there is no velocity of money. Is this because the more money pored into the economy by the G, the more money the rich guys steal? So, there is a general collapse in C. Maybe the work around for the rich guy theft is a $2,000 (sorry, $1,400) check every now and then to the great unwashed. The poors can circulate it a couple of times before the rich guys steal it. Seems like the macro-economists have a lot of "˜splainin' to do. Oh, right, they are busy right now measuring the output gap.

eg , , May 1, 2021 at 2:17 pm

Can someone please define the variables in this comment?

T
G
X
M
C

Also, is there an equation that goes with them?

chuck roast , , May 1, 2021 at 3:29 pm

GNP = Consumption + Investment + Government + (Exports " Imports)

I'd like to see Mark go into a discussion on the velocity of money. I remember the old timey Keynesians lecturing about it, and that's all I remember. I'm guessing that it's related to the marginal propensity to consume.

Ed S. , , May 1, 2021 at 4:35 pm

Chuck,

I may be getting a bit out over my skis, but the St. Louis Fed calculates the velocity of money ( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V ). It is defined as

The velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically- produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy.

So as velocity slows, fewer transactions happen. Based on the linked chart, the peak velocity was 2.2 in mid-1997. In Q1 2021, it was 1.12. By my understanding, although the money supply continues to increase, the money isn't flowing through the economy in the way it was over the last 30 years (or even 10 years ago).

It's beyond my level of understanding to say with any certainty as to why the slowdown in velocity has occurred, but I speculate it's directly related to the ever-growing inequality in the US economy and the ongoing rentier-ism that Dr. Hudson discusses. [simplistically, if Jeff Bezos has $1.3 billion more on Monday than on Friday, that money will flow virtually nowhere. If each of Amazon's employees equally shared that $1.3 billion (about $1,000 each), the preponderance of the money would flow into the economy in short order].

I've always speculated that money velocity is one of the key indicators of the stagnant economy since 2008. It certainly has coincided with the dramatic increase in wealth in the top fraction (not the 1% but the 0.001%) of the US population.

flora , , May 1, 2021 at 1:03 pm

Thanks for this post. Blyth is always good at explaining in a way I can understand.

Mikel , , May 1, 2021 at 1:04 pm

What Blythe has laid out is not a tale about inflation or money, but a tale about power.

If money goes to the non-elite, you get inflation. If it goes to the elite, you don't get inflation.
If you are a country with little control of your resources (not lack of resources, but control) and/or loans (think IMF)/debt (think war reparations) that give people with little interest in whether you live or die control over your countries' finances, you can be prone to inflation or even hyperinflation.

Yeah, I figured out a long time ago that none of this is any "natural economic law" because there is no such thing as "nature" in economics. Inflation is all about political decisions and perceptions.

And I saw this on YouTube a couple of days ago"¦and I still can't think of anything around me that hasn't gone up on price.

politicaleconomist , , May 1, 2021 at 2:37 pm

This is a good response to Summers. But I have a quibble and a concern.
My quibble is that he offers no theory of inflation except implicitly aggregate supply exceeding aggregate demand and there is nothing but hand-waving regarding what he is referring to that he feels has a one chance in ten of happening versus Summers one in three. A second part of this quibble is: what does it mean for inflation to "come roaring back." I assume it means more than just a short-term adjustment to a shot of government spending and gifting. I believe if he thought this through he would have to conclude that without changes in the current structure of the global economy there is no way for this to happen. That really is the case he has made. With labor beaten down not only in the US but worldwide inflation will not come roaring back, period. That is unless there is a chance either that a labor renewal is a near-term possibility. I doubt he believes this. Or does he believe there is another way for inflation to roar back? If so, what is that way, what is the theory behind it?

A more fundamental concern is the part where he relies on marginal productivity theory when discussing employment and exploitation. Conceptually that far from Marx's fundamental distinction between labor and labor power.

Wukchumni , , May 1, 2021 at 2:45 pm

Hyperinflation doesn't seem to be possible in this age of digital money no matter how much you conjure up because nobody notices the extreme amount of monies around all of the sudden as the average joe isn't in the know.

Used houses are always appreciating in value, but none dare call it inflationary, more of a desired outcome in income advancement if you own a domicile.

There were no shortages of anything in the aftermath of the GFC, and now for want of a semiconductor, a car sale was lost. Everything got way too complex, and we'll be paying the price for that.

I think the inflation to come won't be caused by a lack of faith in a given country's money, but the products and services it enabled us to purchase.

Mikel , , May 1, 2021 at 3:47 pm

""¦and now for want of a semiconductor, a car sale was lost"¦."
Sometimes car sales are lost because the price of cars has gone up (new and used)"¦just don't call it inflation"¦

I'm going to let some more time pass, but stimulus or not, we went from all economic problems being laid at the feet of Covid to now moving on to "shortages" everywhere"¦

Just enought to make you go"¦hmmmm"¦.unti more time passes.

Ed S. , , May 1, 2021 at 8:34 pm

Used houses always appreciate " or is it that they appreciate due to a combination of inflation in income over time and the dramatic decrease in interest rates over the last 20 years?

A very quick back of the envelope calc (literally " and all number are approximate):

In June 2000, median US income was $40,500; 30 yr mortgage rate was 8.25%. 28% of monthly income = $945. That supports a mortgage (30 yr fixed, P&I only " no tax, insurance, etc) of roughly $125,000.

In June 2005, median US income was $44,000; 30 yr mortgage rate was 5.5%. 28% of monthly income = $1026. That supports a mortgage (30 yr fixed, P&I only " no tax, insurance, etc) of roughly $180,000.

In June 2010, median US income was $49,500; 30 yr mortgage rate was 4.69%. 28% of monthly income = $1155. That supports a mortgage (30 yr fixed, P&I only " no tax, insurance, etc) of roughly $225,000.

In June 2015, median US income was $53,600; 30 yr mortgage rate was 4.00%. 28% of monthly income = $1250. That supports a mortgage (30 yr fixed, P&I only " no tax, insurance, etc) of roughly $260,000.

Finally, In June 2020, median US income was $63,000; 30 yr mortgage rate was 3.25%. 28% of monthly income = $1470. That supports a mortgage (30 yr fixed, P&I only " no tax, insurance, etc) of roughly $340,000.

And for fun, if you went to 40% of income in 2020 (payment only), a $2100 monthly payment will cover nearly a $500,000 mortgage in 2020.

For the vast majority of home buyers, the price isn't the main consideration " it's how much will it cost per month. So a small increase in median income (roughly 2% per year) combined with dramatically lower interest rates can drive a HUGE increase in a mortgage " and ultimately the price that can be paid for a house.

Michael Ismoe , , May 1, 2021 at 3:24 pm

I find it amazing that when you give poor people money, it creates inflation. If you give rich people money, it creates jobs (LOL. Sure it does.).

As long as billionaires pay as little as possible, the world is fine.

Tom Bradford , , May 1, 2021 at 3:49 pm

Can't say I really understand this sort of thing but saying rocketing house-prices is "˜a singularity' rather than "˜house-price inflation' has to me echoes of the Bourbon's "Bread too expensive? Let them eat cake." And Versailles wasn't a defensive position either.

In my version of economics-for-the-under-tens you get inflation in two situations. First is where enough folk have enough cash in their pockets for producers/manufacturers/retailers to hike their prices without hitting their sales too much and secondly where there's a shortage of stuff people want and/or need which leads to a bidding war. However I'd agree with Blyth that neither condition exists now or seems likely to arise for a while, making a "˜spike' in inflation unlikely.

ArvidMartensen , , May 1, 2021 at 4:17 pm

I am a non-economist, and so my thoughts below may be wrong. However, here goes.
I would say we have had inflation. Roaring inflation. For the past 20 years of so.

Inflation in wages and ordinary costs of living? No, wages have been stagnant. Health care has led the charge in cost of living increases, but most other living expense increases have been low.

Inflation in asset prices? We have had massive inflation in the costs of residential housing where I live.
20 years ago I could buy a 5 br, 3 bath home on a decent block in a good area close to everything for $270,000 dollars. Sure it needed some renovation, but still"¦. Now to buy that home it would cost me around $1,250,000. So that home has gone up in value by 500%. Man, that is inflation.

As I understand it, asset inflation is not counted by governments in the GDP or CPI. It appears that those who have most of the assets don't want this to be counted, by the very fact that they control the politicians who control what is counted, and asset inflation isn't counted in the economic data that the politicians rely upon to prove how prudent they are.

So if you want a day to day example of where all this free money is going, look at housing. And also have a quick look at the insane increases in the worth of billionaires. They love all this government spending which magically? seems to end up, via asset purchase and asset price inflation, in their pockets.

cnchal , , May 1, 2021 at 7:02 pm

That home has gone up in price by 500%

Price is what one pays, value is what one gets. That house is roughly the same, so the value has not changed, but the price has gone up by a factor of 5

Same with stawks. One share of Amazon stawk is $3,467.42 as of yesterday.

What is its value? If Bezos can work his tools ever harder, monitor them down to the nanosecond and wring ever moar productivity out of them before throwing them in the tool dumpster behind every Amazon warehouse, the value proposition is that someone else will believe the stawk price should be even higher, at which point one can sell it at greater price for a profit.

Susan the other , , May 1, 2021 at 5:07 pm

What is inflation? Good question. I'd say inflation is fear of monetary devaluation. Not devaluation, just the fear of it. We'll never overcome this unease if we always deal in numbers. Dollars, digits, whatever. We need to deal in commodities " let's call just about everything we live with and use a "commodity". Including unpaid family help/care; and the more obvious things like transportation. If we simply took a summary of all the necessary things we need to live decent lives " but not translated into dollars because dollars have no sense " and then provided these necessities via some government agency so that they were not "inflated" in the process and thereby provided a stable society, then government could MMT this very easily. Our current approach is so audaciously stupid it will never make sense let alone balance any balance sheets. That's a feature, not a bug because it's the best way to steal a profit. The best way to stop demand inflation or some fake scarcity or whatever is to provide the necessary availability. That's where uncle Joe is gonna run headlong into a brick wall. He has spent his entire life doing the exact opposite.

William Neil , , May 1, 2021 at 6:59 pm

The figure for the upward transfer of wealth from the Rand Study was $50 trillion between 1975-2018. It was adjusted up by the authors from $47 trillion to bring it up to 2020 trends.

Here are the authors explaining what they found and their methodology: https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

Now the interesting thing to me is this " look at the date of the publication in Time magazine: Sept. 14, 2020, so right in the heart of campaign fever, and it never came up in the debates, in the press"¦I didn't hear about it until Blyth made one of his appearances on Jay's show with Rana Foroohar. Long after the election.

VietnamVet , , May 1, 2021 at 9:47 pm

As long as 80% of Americans are head over heels in debt and 52% of 18-to-29-year-olds are currently living with their parents, there never will be the wage inflation of the 1970s. A majority of the people arrested for the Capitol riot had a history of financial trouble. The elite blue zones in Washington State and Oregon that prospered from globalism are seeing a spike in coronavirus cases. North American neoliberal governments have failed dismally. It is intentional in order to exploit more wealth for the rich from the natural resources and workers. If the mRNA vaccines do not control coronavirus variants, and a workable national public health system is not implemented; succession and chaos will bring on Zimbabwe type inflation.

There is a reason why Portland Oregon has been a center of unrest for the past year. The Elite just do not want to see it. How can Janet Yellen deal with this? She can't. She is an Insider. She was paid 7.2 million dollars in speaker and seminar fees in the last two years not to.

[May 05, 2021] Flip flop: Yellen Says She Isn't Predicting Higher Interest Rates

Treasury as a PR operation ;-) Trying to stem inflating by talking it down.
May 05, 2021 | www.wsj.com
Treasury Secretary walks backs comments she made earlier suggesting that rates might rise

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Tuesday she is neither predicting nor recommending that the Federal Reserve raise interest rates as a result of President Biden's spending plans, walking back her comments earlier in the day that rates might need to rise to keep the economy from overheating.

"I don't think there's going to be an inflationary problem, but if there is, the Fed can be counted on to address it," Ms. Yellen, a former Fed chairwoman, said Tuesday at The Wall Street Journal's CEO Council Summit.

Ms. Yellen suggested earlier Tuesday that the central bank might have to raise rates to keep the economy from overheating, if the Biden administration's roughly $4 trillion spending plans are enacted.

[May 03, 2021] Tucker Carlson Says People Who Wear Masks Outside Should Be Mocked by Paul Joseph Watson

Apr 27, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Leftists reacted with fury after Fox News host Tucker Carlson said people who wear masks outside should be mocked and that parents who made their kids wear them were engaging in "child abuse."

me title=

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.453.0_en.html#goog_1043494571

Carlson noted that masks were "purely a sign of political obedience like Kim Il-Sung pins in Pyongyang" and that the only people who voluntarily wear masks outside are "zealots and neurotics."

He then asserted that the tables should be turned on Biden voters who have been harassing conservatives for almost a year for not wearing a mask in public.

"The rest of us should be snorting at them first, they're the aggressors – it's our job to brush them back and restore the society we were born in," said Carlson.

"So the next time you see someone in a mask on the sidewalk or on the bike path, do not hesitate. Ask politely but firmly, ' Would you please take off your mask? Science shows there is no reason for you to be wearing it. Your mask is making me uncomfortable, " he added.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1386921015943602178&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fcovid-19%2Ftucker-carlson-says-people-who-wear-masks-outside-should-be-mocked&sessionId=2230b0fb24328ba2a6edaa853064249defa128d8&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=b5cd9ac%3A1619504549508&width=550px

"We should do that and we should keep doing it until wearing a mask outside is roughly as socially accepted as lighting a Marlboro on an elevator."

The Fox News host went on to call mask wearing "repulsive" while asserting that forcing children to wear masks outside should be illegal.

"Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart. Call the police immediately. Contact Child Protective Services. Keep calling until someone arrives," Carlson said.

"What you're looking at is abuse, it's child abuse, and you are morally obligated to attempt to prevent it," he added.

As expected, Carlson immediately began trending on Twitter, with hysterical leftists hyperventilating over Tucker once again challenging their cult. Many called for the Fox News host to be fired while others ludicrously described him as a "national security threat."

As we highlighted yesterday , even Dr. Fauci now admits that the risk of vaccinated people spreading COVID outside is "minuscule," and yet some health professionals are pushing for the mask mandates to be made permanent.

The transmission of COVID-19 outdoors is almost non-existent, making mask mandates merely a political tool of population control.

In a recent open letter to the German government and state premiers, five leading members of the Association for Aerosol Research (GAeF) wrote, "The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses takes place indoors almost without exception. Transmission outdoors is extremely rare and never leads to cluster infections as can be observed indoors."

* * *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

* * *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here . Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here


Fiscal.Enema 8 hours ago (Edited)

In all fairness... Tucker should have pointed out that SOME MASKS do filter out the virus most of the time.

Wearing a mask outdoors in most situations is ridiculous, stupid, and dangerous.

3M N95's 1860 which are electrostatically charged have good filtration protection against most virus.

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-Health-Care-Particulate-Respirator-and-Surgical-Mask-1860-N95-120-EA-Case/?N=5002385+3294795990&rt=rud

Why the us government did not fund this type of mask for all is telling what the overall strategy is.

Controlling you, your neighbor, and others that think for themselves.

Its not about the virus

Robert Neville 7 hours ago

Actually, M95 masks filter out 95% of particles over 4 microns in diameter in perfect conditions. In the real world it is much less effective than that. Viruses are generally less than one micron in size so they are ineffective for most viruses. Also, the masks are so hard to breath through that some version have an exhale valve so they do nothing to protect others if you are infected. Most masks don't protect your eyes. The only thing that works is a space suit that is decontaminated before you remove it. The rest is virtue siganling.

Fiscal.Enema 6 hours ago

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/04/lab-study-supports-use-n95-respirators-flu-protection

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!

Properly fitted n95's do protect against virus and the science proves it.

Dickweed Wang 10 hours ago (Edited)

This is an excerpt from the "Stanford Study" from November 2020 (that's been making the rounds in the alternative media and conservative media space recently) about the uselessness of masks in preventing "the virus":

A meta -analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28] . Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta -analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28] . A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29] .

It's predictable that the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to "fact check" and disparage the entire paper (do an internet search for 'Stanford Mask Paper' and you'll see what I'm talking about). Their main criticism is 'that wasn't published by Stanford', while they totally ignore the claims made in the paper. When you look at the people and organizations doing the fact checking it really shows that the entire mask issue is a political/control ploy. Here's the link to the entire paper if anyone is interested:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

[May 03, 2021] He who wear mask while alone in car should also wear condom while alone in bed. The power of propaganda about wearing masks outdoor coming from TV truly rots your brain

From comments: " Tucker is right on this one. If you wear a mask outside you truly are a moron. You may as well add goggles and a butt plug." ... "Don't forget about those solo drivers with masks on!", "Maskers are stupid scared virtue signalers"
May 03, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Dickweed Wang 10 hours ago (Edited)

As an anti-mask militant for quite a while now I've been going out of my way to ask people with masks on outdoors why they're wearing one (I've really tried to be polite but it's getting increasingly hard to do that). In literally hundreds of instances I haven't gotten a straight answer yet. It's stunning that people are so gullible but it shows what the power of propaganda really is. 99% of that is coming from teevee, which truly rots your brain.

Capt Tripps 10 hours ago remove link

They are signaling the submission to a tyrannical state. That submission makes us all less free.

safelyG 10 hours ago

mister tucker is wrongeddy wrong wrong.

we must all wear multiple masks. indoors. outdoors. at work. at play. while we sleep. while we bathe. while we eat. while we sing praises unto the most high.

and we must remain 8 feet apart, one from the other. at all times.

and report our whereabouts and our contacts and our body temperature. to the authorities.

get your vacines!

lovingly,
bill n melinda

radical-extremist 10 hours ago

When Tucker Carlson says to tell people to take off their masks and call CPS on parents who mask their children he's trolling the Left. And because the Left has no sense of humor or irony or hypocrisy...they're of course OUTRAGED, which was his point.

Realism 10 hours ago remove link

I like it best when hiking outside, in 75 degree weather with a nice breeze, you see people put up their mask as they walk by

Pure comedy, it's hard to understand the stupidity if you think you'll get any disease much less Covid walking by someone

And importantly, would you really be hiking if you had Covid LOL

aztrader 10 hours ago

Mask wears see it as a badge of honor because they "care" about other people. In reality, it's a badge of Stupidity and ignorance.

Prince Velveeta 10 hours ago (Edited) remove link

California is an open-air mental ward. I was just out there and the collective idiocy is astounding. People jogging with masks on , exaggerating their breathing as they pass you in some competitive virtue signaling event. I witnessed some idiot jogging up the hill past my family member's house, with a bandana on his face, being sucked into his mouth as he's gasping for air.....

[May 03, 2021] The CIA Used To Infiltrate The Media... Now The CIA Is The Media by Caitlin Johnstone,

Apr 16, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone,

Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.

me data-google-container-id=

Analysis: US blinks first on Russia-Ukraine tensions

Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The New York Times on the so-called “Bountygate†story the outlet broke in June of last year about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan.

“One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story (originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,†Greenwald tweeted .

“So media outlets - again - repeated CIA stories with no questioning: congrats to all.â€

Indeed, NYT’s original story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only “officials,†yet this latest article speaks as though it had been informing its readers of the story’s roots in the lying, torturing , drug-running , warmongering Central Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New York Times first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s assessment,†with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting that the CIA was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1382793565714153472&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fcia-used-infiltrate-media-now-cia-media&sessionId=77ef0dadbd05c9f3bcb1de7857a624713a43f3d8&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=550px

This would be the same “Russian bounties†narrative which was discredited all the way back in September when the top US military official in Afghanistan said no satisfactory evidence had surfaced for the allegations, which was further discredited today with a new article by The Daily Beast titled “ U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops â€.

The Daily Beast , which has itself uncritically published many articles promoting the CIA “Bountygate†narrative, reports the following:

It was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game†in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.

But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate†confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven â€" and possibly untrue.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1382769897420296194&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fcia-used-infiltrate-media-now-cia-media&sessionId=77ef0dadbd05c9f3bcb1de7857a624713a43f3d8&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=550px

So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of, because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning. They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.

This allowed the CIA to throw shade and inertia on Trump’s proposed troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Germany, and to continue ramping up anti-Russia sentiments on the world stage , and may well have contributed to the fact that the agency will officially be among those who are exempt from Biden’s performative Afghanistan “withdrawal†.

In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!†and the news media unquestioningly publish it.

In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “ The CIA and the Media †reporting that the CIA had covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the agendas of spooks and warmongers.

Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor , and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like Tucker Carlson.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1382777804014641152&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fcia-used-infiltrate-media-now-cia-media&sessionId=77ef0dadbd05c9f3bcb1de7857a624713a43f3d8&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=550px

This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse. Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even any pretence of separation, has been dropped.

This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if people’s votes aren’t being cast with a clear understanding of what’s happening in their nation and their world, and if their understanding is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government they’re meant to be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization with no accountability to the electorate whatsoever. It’s just an immense globe-spanning power structure, doing whatever it wants to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in disguise.

And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just a glance at what the CIA was up to with the Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-3&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1382856410443186179&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fcia-used-infiltrate-media-now-cia-media&sessionId=77ef0dadbd05c9f3bcb1de7857a624713a43f3d8&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=550px

There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is comfortable, and for literally no other reason.

The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the thoughts we think in our own heads.

May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.

* * *

New book: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix .

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi , Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you can buy my books . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

19,360 115

[May 03, 2021] The Price of the Stuff That Makes Everything Is Surging

May 03, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

The prices of raw materials used to make almost everything are skyrocketing, and the upward trajectory looks set to continue as the world economy roars back to life.

From steel and copper to corn and lumber, commodities started 2021 with a bang, surging to levels not seen for years. The rally threatens to raise the cost of goods from the lunchtime sandwich to gleaming skyscrapers. It’s also lit the fuse on the massive reflation trade that’s gripped markets this year and pushed up inflation expectations. With the U.S. economy pumped up on fiscal stimulus, and Europe’s economy starting to reopen as its vaccination rollout gets into gear, there’s little reason to expect a change in direction.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. said this week it sees a continued rally in commodities and that the “reflation and reopening trade will continue.†On top of that, the Federal Reserve and other central banks seem calm about inflation, meaning economies could be left to run hot, which will rev up demand even more.

“The most important drivers supporting commodity prices are the global economic recovery and acceleration in the reopening phase,†said Giovanni Staunovo, commodity analyst at UBS Group AG. The bank expects commodities as a whole to rise about 10% in the next year.


[May 03, 2021] Bond Market's Inflation Bulls Get Powell Go-Ahead to Double Down

May 03, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

The Treasury market's inflation bulls seem to have gotten a green light from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to double down on wagers that price pressures will only intensify in the months ahead.

The renewed mojo for the reflation trade follows Powell's reaffirmation this week of the central bank's intention to let the world's biggest economy run hot for some time as it recovers from the pandemic. The Fed's unwavering commitment to ultra-loose policy in the face of robust economic data is what caught traders' attention. It took on added significance as it coincided with signs infections are ebbing again in the U.S., and as President Joe Biden unveiled plans for trillions more in fiscal spending.

Investors eying all this aren't ready to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt in its assessment that inflationary pressures will prove temporary. A key bond-market proxy of inflation expectations for the next decade just hit the highest since 2013, and cash has been pouring into the largest exchange-traded fund for Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. Globally, there's been a net inflow into mutual and exchange-traded inflation-linked debt funds for 23 straight weeks, EPFR Global data show.

The Fed is stressing that inflation's upswing "is transitory, but we likely won't have better clarity on this assertion until this initial economic wave from reopening has subsided," said Jake Remley, a senior portfolio manager at Income Research + Management, which oversees $89.5 billion. "Inflation is a very difficult macro-economic phenomenon to predict in normal times. The uncertainty of a global pandemic and a dramatic economic rebound" has made it even harder.

Ten-year TIPS provide a reasonably priced insurance policy against inflation risk over the coming decade, Remley said. The securities show traders are wagering annual consumer price inflation will average about 2.4% through April 2031. The measure has roared back from the depths of last year, when it dipped below 0.5% at one point in March.


[May 03, 2021] Warren Buffett- We are seeing substantial inflation and are raising prices

May 03, 2021 | finance.yahoo.com

Brian Sozzi · Editor-at-Large Sat, May 1, 2021, 6:05 PM

Billionaire Warren Buffett is joining the long list of executives saying serious levels of inflation are starting to take hold as the U.S. economy roars back from the COVID-19 downturn.

"We are seeing substantial inflation," Buffett said at the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting broadcast exclusively by Yahoo Finance . "We are raising prices. People are raising prices to us, and it's being accepted."

Buffett called out much higher steel costs impacting Berkshire's housing and furniture businesses.

"People have money in their pocket, and they pay higher prices... it's almost a buying frenzy," Buffett said, noting that the economy is "red hot."

The Oracle of Omaha isn't alone in battling inflation at the moment from everything to higher steel prices to runaway copper prices.

The number of mentions of "inflation" during first quarter earnings calls this month have tripled year-over-year, the biggest jump dating back to 2004, according to fresh research from Bank of America strategist Savita Subramanian . Raw materials, transportation, and labor were cited as the main drivers of inflation .

Subramanian's research found that the number of inflation mentions has historically led the consumer price index by a quarter, with 52% correlation. In other words, Subramanian thinks investors could see a "robust" rebound in inflation in coming months in the wake of the latest round of C-suite commentary.

"Inflation is arguably the biggest topic during this earnings season, with a broad array of sectors (Consumer/Industrials/Materials, etc.) citing inflation pressures," Subramanian notes.

The world's biggest companies are taking action, just like Buffett at Berkshire.

Proctor & Gamble said recently it would begin to hike prices on baby care , feminine care and adult incontinence products in the United States. Price increases will range from mid- to high-single digit percentages. The hikes will go into effect in mid-September.


Whirlpool CFO Jim Peters recently told Yahoo Finance Live the appliance maker just jacked up prices by 5% to 12% to counteract rising steel costs.

Kleenex maker Kimberly-Clark said it will increase prices in the U.S. and Canada on the majority of its consumer products due to "significant" commodity cost inflation. The percentage increases will range from mid- to high-single digits and go into effect in June.

[May 03, 2021] The Fed's -Base-Effect- Inflation Argument Is Nonsense - ZeroHedge

May 03, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

By Joseph Carson , former chief economist of Alliance Bernstein

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has played down the current runup in inflation, arguing it is associated with the reopening of the economy. And as the low inflation readings of one year ago drop out, the twelve-month calculation (i.e., the so-called base effect) of reported inflation is likely to move up in the coming months.

Yet, Mr. Powell's "base effect" inflation argument is nonsense. For the "base effect" argument to be correct, the twelve-month reading of reported inflation should be markedly lower when the economy was closed than what occurred before the pandemic. But that's not the case.

Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the twelve-month change ending in March 2021 in the core personal consumption index (the Fed's preferred price index) was 1.83%. That compares to the 1.87% reading for the year ending in February 2020 and 1.7% for the year before that.

The 1.83% reading for twelve months ending March 2021 essentially matches the average inflation rate of the two prior years. And that 12 month period includes the three months (April to June) when the economy was closed, and GDP plunged a record 31% annualized. How could there be a "base effect" on reported inflation when the base year has the same inflation rate as it did before the pandemic?

Mr. Powell's "base effect" inflation argument has not been questioned or challenged by analysts or reporters. Regardless of that, investors need to ignore the Fed's rhetoric and treat upcoming price increases as "new" inflation.

As nonsensical as the explanation for the uptick in inflation, so too is the remedy. Demand has always been the primary force behind broad inflation cycles. Yet, Mr. Powell argues that product price inflation will ease once manufacturers increase output and eliminate "supply bottlenecks," and home inflation will slow once builders build more homes.

It's hard to see how more supply (or growth) will slow inflation anytime soon. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company (Freddie Mac) estimates that the US needs almost 4 million new homes to meet demand. That could take two to three years. Also, it's hard to see how increasing product output will solve the inflation problem. The supply-side argument solution; fight inflation with more demand and more commodity inflation.

The Fed's mantra has always been "inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon." But nowhere in Mr. Powell's statements or comments do you find any monetary policy role for increased inflation or any responsibility for containment. Investors forewarned.

[Apr 29, 2021] After thirteen months, the BLS still cannot count the Unemployed

Apr 29, 2021 | www.shadowstats.com

After thirteen months, the BLS still cannot count the Unemployed. Headline U.3 Unemployment also remained deep in non-recovery territory. The BLS acknowledged continuing misclassification of some "unemployed" persons as "employed," in the Household Survey. Where the count of the understated unemployed had an "upside limit" of 636,000 persons in March 2021, the February 2021 upside estimate of understated unemployed was 756,000. The difference would be a potential headline U.3 of 6.44% instead of today's headline 6.05%, which was down from a headline 6.22% in February. Fully adjusted for COVID-19 disruptions, based on BLS side-surveys of Pandemic impact, and with more than six million people missing from the headline U.S. labor force, actual headline U.3 unemployment still should be well above 10%, the highest unemployment rate since before World War II, outside of the Pandemic and possibly at the trough of the 1982-1983 recession. Broader March 2021 headline U.6 unemployment [including some decline in short-term discouraged workers and those employed part-time for economic reasons] eased to 10.71% from 11.07% in February. Including long-term discouraged/ displaced workers, the March 2021 ShadowStats Alternate Measure –- moving on top of the decline in U.6 –- notched minimally lower to 25.7%, from 25.8% in February 2021, reflecting some modeled transition of "short-term" to "long-term" discouraged workers, with the Pandemic having passed its 12-month anniversary. The latest Unemployment Rates are posted on the ALTERNATE DATA tab (above).

[Apr 29, 2021] Federal Reserve isn't fooling anybody on inflation

Apr 29, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Apr 29 2021 15:19 utc | 7

Food for thought:

Federal Reserve isn't fooling anybody on inflation

I don't share David P. Goldman's ideology and convictions. They are almost the polar opposite of mine's.

But he has something I don't have, something that only a bourgeois specialist can give: insider information.

I once hypothesized here that, if the USA were to collapse suddenly (which I don't think it ever will, but if it do happen), then it would surely involve an uncontrolled growing spiral of inflation/hyperinflation. That's the logical conclusion of an hypothetical collapse of the USD standard.

So far, I can only see a mild rise in inflation. I don't think the USA will ever experience hyperinflation (four-digit) or even true high inflation (two-digit). Goldman is a rabid neoliberal, and anything above 2% is hyperinflation for him, so we should take these kind of analyses with a grain of salt.

--//--

Sugar rush:

US real GDP rose 6.4 per cent on an annualised basis in the first quarter

Fed Chair Jay Powell said that the Fed was not going to tighten monetary policy any time soon. So the US stock market hit yet another all-time high.

[Apr 27, 2021] We Can t Police These People by Gregory Hood

Apr 27, 2021 | www.unz.com
We Can’t Police These People GREGORY HOOD • APRIL 21, 2021 • 2,300 WORDS • 16 COMMENTS • REPLY Tweet Reddit Share Share Email Print More RSS Share to Gab After a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty on all three counts, people celebrated outside of the Hennepin County Government Center and marched downtown in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on April 20, 2021. (Credit Image: © Dominick Sokotoff / ZUMA Wire)

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.†â€" Thomas Jefferson

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384615385127817225&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

The trial was pointless . We knew the outcome . We knew the threat. Convict Derek Chauvin of murder, or cities will burn . Jurors surely knew they would be doxxed if they didn’t vote to convict; one potential juror was dismissed after he dared mention this fear.

There is a debate to be had about police conduct. I’m not going to back the blue unconditionally after Charlottesville , Ashli Babbit , and the ruthless manhunt for January 6 rioters. Derek Chauvin would have carried out the same orders against us. However, what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd isn’t even close to what happened to white man Daniel Shaver , gunned down in a hotel hallway by a police officer who was later acquitted and was paid for his mental suffering . This is about race, not police. I expect police will crack down further on law-abiding whites while ignoring black crime .

The howls for Derek Chauvin’s head were primal. I haven’t heard such cries of triumph since O.J. Simpson was acquitted .

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384603605517340675&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-2&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384628242653589505&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-3&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384699907655626753&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-4&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384614859606724609&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

Of course, Derek Chauvin was hardly a champion of white identity . In 2018, the Twin Cities Pioneer Press gave a fawning profile to his then-wife, Hmong refugee Kellie Chauvin. She called her husband a “gentleman†and “just a softie.†Less than two years later, just three days after George Floyd’s death , she divorced him. Her lawyer told journalists about her “utmost sympathy†for Floyd’s family.

What’s so striking about the Derek Chauvin case is that it could have happened anywhere. Every police officer (or white person who lives in a black neighborhood) knows about the sob stories, the wailing, the lying, and the sudden switch from threats to begging and back again when blacks face cops. Floyd himself had tried this soft-shoe routine when he was arrested in 2019. Derek Chauvin and his three colleagues had probably seen far worse.

Yet it was Derek Chauvin’s blasé attitude during the arrest, his business-like nature, that doomed him. If he had acted less professional, by panicking or begging Floyd to remain calm, it would have been different. The other officers were just as relaxed. They must feel dumbfounded that their attempts to subdue a raving man on drugs led to something close to a revolution. The prosecutor’s closing argument was something out of a nursery rhyme, denying that George Floyd’s heart problems and drug-taking caused his death, but rather that Derek Chauvin’s “heart was too small.†(The media loved it.)

Whether a routine arrest like this becomes a cause depends on countless factors. If the teenager Darnella Frazier had not taken a video , nothing would have happened. Even with body cam footage, I suspect there would have been no case. Without a simple image to rouse the simple masses, no one would have cared.

The sanctification of George Floyd makes this even more surreal. The #MeToo movement took down powerful men who had made inappropriate jokes or crude gestures decades ago, but a criminal who spent his last moments on earth trying to rip-off shopkeepers and lying to police has become a holy figure , complete with literal claims of miracles. George Floyd’s life and death were practically a caricature of what the crudest “racist†would conjure out of a hateful imagination. A white man with his record would have been treated exactly the same , but because Floyd was black, journalists made him a saint. Most people let others build their reality . Post-white America has a new faith .

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, author of The Bible of Unspeakable Truths and The Joy of Hate , said that even if Derek Chauvin wasn’t guilty of all charges, he thought the verdict was a good thing. “I want a verdict that keeps this country from going up in flames,†he explained. That’s the bravery of American conservatives for you. While the country didn’t “go up in flames,†there were some troubling signs last night that worse is to come.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-5&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384670611348365313&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-6&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384778654463430656&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

The guilty verdict didn’t calm the streets. It didn’t even calm the politicians. The President of the United States said that “this can be a moment of significant change.†Kamala Harris , whose parents are immigrants, intones that this won’t “heal the pain that existed for generations.†Barack and Michelle Obama want “true justice,†which requires “that we come to terms with the fact that Black Americans are treated differently, every day.†(I don’t think they mean affirmative action.) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the verdict wasn’t justice and doesn’t want people to think the system works. Empty-headed celebrities demand that more be done.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-7&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384638503384911873&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

The guilty verdicts didn’t douse the fire; it fed the flames. It’s yet more proof: rioting works.

And now, we’ve already had a member of Congress demanding that policing be abolished because it can’t be reformed:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-8&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1381745303997534216&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fghood%2Fwe-cant-police-these-people%2F&sessionId=d2e5069c452172e4f5d4a2eb4c42221d839ce747&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=500px

Rep. Tlaib represents Detroit , where the already-ruined city saw a huge increase in homicides and shootings in 2020, just another part of what was undoubtedly the largest single-year increase in the murder rate in American history. Almost all the added victims were black. “The community†doesn’t seem to care, so there’s no reason politicians should.

Let’s hear no wailing about “black lives.†The main victims of the crime wave are black, with victims including children , partygoers , and funeral guests . Voters who elect progressive prosecutors don’t seem to care any more than the “community†does. Do they prefer bloodshed to good police work?

Vox tells us BLM has led to a reduction in “police homicides†in areas where there were protests. Of course, at least some of these homicides would have been justified use of force. Yet the very same research Vox cites says that between 2014 and 2019, there were “somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than would have been expected [absent protests]†in those places. Even if we accept the unhinged premise that police suddenly stopped gunning down blacks for no reasons, the result of BLM was thousands of dead blacks â€" and nice houses for the movement’s co-founder .

Still, it’s not about blacks. It’s about us. Rudyard Kipling, a poet who wouldn’t get far in our affirmative action world , wrote :

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,

To puff and look important and to say: â€"

“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.

We will therefore pay you cash to go away.â€

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

But we’ve proved it again and again,

That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

You never get rid of the Dane.

We paid the Dane-geld. We’ve shamefully paid it to people with far less nobility and courage than the Vikings. The Minnesota protester screaming that riots worked is right. They worked because they had media backing. If others ran the press, the Cannon Hinnant case alone could have changed everything. Instead, most whites haven’t heard of it, nor about the others of our race butchered every year .

Our loss of identity leaves us vulnerable to moral blackmail. Whites seem to be in a permanent state of shellshock. White conservatives want to be left alone, with Tucker Carlson saying that what the nation needs “more than anything†is “a moment to catch our national breath.†Really? Conservatives know something is wrong, but don’t dare recognize the real problem. Republicans who collaborate with this rotten system have shut down even halting steps towards white identity .

Meanwhile, over the last decade, white liberals have radically changed their views on race and actively discriminate against whites . It’s more correct to say that new views were inserted into their brains through hysterical media coverage of police shootings. Those who call themselves “very liberal†are hopelessly deluded. A majority think that police gun down over 1,000 unarmed black men a year â€" almost 100 times the actual number.

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/5Bf07CnmFidD/

Statistics can’t compete with sob-stories, and stories give people meaning. I believe many Americans get their moral purpose for life from them.

There are also specific benefits in keeping the system going. Activists and politicians build careers. Blacks get a chance of hitting the “ ghetto lottery †(assumed they aren’t killed) and becoming heroes. It’s a strong incentive to turn a petty scam into an epic showdown. Journalists who want to lead a social revolution or just get clicks (or both) fall right in line.

Even as this is written, there is a case in Columbus, Ohio that could be our next George Floyd-style passion play. Officers arrived at a chaotic brawl and shot a black girl. Body cam footage shows the girl trying to stab someone before she was shot. Nonetheless, the image the Associated Press uses for the story is a Black Lives Matter protest. It looks like yet another case of a degenerate “community†causing chaos, attracting the police, and causing a racial confrontation.

This is what the dead girl’s aunt told The Daily Beast:

The police are going to lie. I’m so thankful that someone from the family was actually on the scene,†[Aunt] Bryant said . . . . “The police are going to lie. The police are going to cover up for themselves. They don’t care. At this point, I feel like they’re just out to kill Black people. They’re not here to protect and serve. That isn’t happening. That’s been over a long time ago. They’re not here to protect and serve. They’re here to kill Black folks.

Like many other whites, I’m exhausted. Unlike Tucker Carlson , I don’t think we need a chance to catch our breath or pursue change more slowly. We need radical change.

Every confrontation between a white officer and a non-white criminal is a potential riot . The process is corrupt because judges, jurors, and politicians know that the mob has a veto over the verdict. The rule of law is dead.

The answer is separation . Without it, this will never stop.

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/2vb9uMyWhLuW/

The strange reality is that there is almost no difference now between being a notorious white advocate or any white guy. Derek Chauvin went, in just one day, from a heartwarming “softie†who married a Hmong refugee to the embodiment of white supremacy. A few days ago, it was a soldier who stopped a black guy from accosting women. He had to be chased from his home. Tomorrow it could be you.

You could try to stop a crime. You could fight back against an assault. Maybe you just look at someone the wrong way. Maybe you do nothing at all. But if you donated $10 to a cause the media don’t like â€" or even if you didn’t â€" you could be the mark for the next great hate hoax.

I write this reluctantly. Many of us become white advocates kicking and screaming, afraid to see the truth. We all get here through experience , usually painful.

However, no matter how far you run, how earnestly you plead, what you say, or even whom you marry, you will always be white to those with power. That means many despise you. At some point, you must decide to stand or kneel, and a society that kneels before the memory of a George Floyd is not one worth serving or saving.

Credit Image: © Matthew Hatcher/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire

Whites created this country. They sustain it. Without whites, there is no America. America is an extension of Western Civilization, white civilization, on this continent. Whites pay to support people who hate, curse, and sometimes kill us. We gain nothing. They owe everything. What they have, we gave them, through weakness, folly, and good intensions .

People celebrated outside of the Hennepin County Government Center after a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty on April 20, 2021. (Credit Image: © Dominick Sokotoff / ZUMA Wire)

We deserve reparations for trillions wasted in a 60-year effort to babysit a population that pays us back with violence and hatred. Most importantly, we deserve liberation from this albatross that prevents any kind of real national life. Almost any price would be worth paying if we could be sovereign and free, something our ancestors took for granted.

All the quasi-theological abstractions about “privilege†and “critical theory†melt away before one immutable truth: They need us; we don’t need them. Until we have the will to say so, all of us â€" including you â€" are just one “viral†incident away from ruin.


Dr. Charles Fhandrich , says: April 21, 2021 at 6:10 pm GMT • 10.8 hours ago

Don’t know who Gregory Hood is but I do know after reading all of his essays, that he is the most erudite writer on race issues. I find him fair and balanced basically sticking to the relevant issue of what ever he is writing about.

SafeNow , says: April 21, 2021 at 7:14 pm GMT • 9.7 hours ago

“Almost any price would be worth paying if we could be sovereign and free…â€

This essay is superb…but worryingly, only as far as it goes. What, very specifically, is the separation plan, and what is the price that might have to be paid and IS worth paying, and what is the price that is NOT worth paying? The action-plan cannot be safely specified, because we have already come too far for one to safely specify it. Already. And worse is to come.

Besides individual ramifications, there is this. In Trump vs. Hawaii, Justice Roberts declined to overrule Korematsu (the Japanese-internment case). He wrote that Korematsu had been “overruled by history.†Group internment remains the law of the land.

And yes, I am too cowardly to speak-out. Again. I was an undergraduate at an elite University exactly when (late 60s) and where this all started. I (and my friends, and like-minded faculty members and administrators) were all too cowardly to speak out, and take action, then. Too much to lose. I apologize to the younger generations.

Jimmy le Blanc , says: April 21, 2021 at 7:23 pm GMT • 9.5 hours ago

American Renaissance is a joke. No mention of the (((real problem))) at all. Until we can discuss and point to the (((instigators))) of our present day horror, we will achieve nothing. The funny and ironic thing about all of this is, (((they))) will suffer as much as any White at the hands of the Frankenstein’s monster they created. I guess Whites can take some small comfort in those just desserts.

Katrinka , says: April 21, 2021 at 7:37 pm GMT • 9.3 hours ago

The U.S. had a good run while it lasted. My plan is to move on. Whites really should consider leaving. Problem is when we establish a new area they will just come to move in on us all over again.

Chris Moore , says: • Website April 21, 2021 at 7:41 pm GMT • 9.2 hours ago

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, author of The Bible of Unspeakable Truths and The Joy of Hate, said that even if Derek Chauvin wasn’t guilty of all charges, he thought the verdict was a good thing. “I want a verdict that keeps this country from going up in flames,†he explained. That’s the bravery of American conservatives for you.

This is how greed-driven “Jews†(Gutfeld is a partially Hebrew, greed-driven Globalist and stooge for Conservatism Inc) have destroyed the neoconned American right, and ultimately the nation. Having no soul or backbone, brushing it all under the carpet in deference to the Golden Calf markets, Satanic Hebrews like Gutfeld will appease the irrational mob all day long, and then just prior to collapse, invoke their “Jewish†heritage and flee to Israel.

This us why they are known as Judenrats , and have always been.

And “liberal†Judenrats are even worse, but had trouble penetrating the GOP until the ((neocons)) came along and sold it on easy-money wars.

Anything for a buck, no matter how Satanic. Morality never enters into the equation. They’re only destroying animal goyim nations, after all.

steinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: April 21, 2021 at 9:29 pm GMT • 7.4 hours ago

Whites don’t need blacks, browns or Jewish parasites.
The day we refuse to be intimidated and believe the lies is the day we get our countries back.
Demand that Congress exercise their constitutional power over money creation.
National strike.
Something.
We need to turn this cancer around rather than waiting for the ship to hit the iceberg. That will be the financial collapse lurking. It is the perfect opportunity for radical reform including constitutional admendments. It will be a blessing in disguise: angry masses looking for soneone to blame. Tptb will try to throw US to the angry masses but we throw them.

Paulbe , says: April 21, 2021 at 10:49 pm GMT • 6.1 hours ago
@Katrinka

The comment above yours expresses well why “moving on†may not be possible. Its not just America they want.

Ultrafart the Brave , says: • Website April 22, 2021 at 12:52 am GMT • 4.1 hours ago
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen y intractable endemic racial frictions in the USA are being systematically nurtured and nourished by malign agents embedded in the American governmental and media frameworks.

The behaviour and loyalties of your Senator Maxine Waters makes this abundantly clear, beyond any ambiguity or doubt.

So there is a cancer, for sure, eating away at the American Republic.

To extend the analogy, the danger with any cancer is permitting it to get past the point of no return, after which the host cannot possibly recover and is inevitably consumed.

So you better find a cure soon, preferably something holistic which feeds the healthy constituents and promotes healing at the same time as extinguishing the poisonous infections.

Otherwise Team America may suffer a tragic and permanent demise.

Phibbs , says: April 22, 2021 at 12:56 am GMT • 4.0 hours ago

Don’t forget that Jews own the media and the politicians. The culture of vicitmhood, cancel culture, “wokeness,†race-baiting and multi-racialism all either originate in the Jewish community or are strongly supported by Jews. Jews brought down white, Christian Russia in 1917 and they are in the process of doing that here. Jews hate us Christian whites and that fact is reflected in their media.

ThreeCranes , says: April 22, 2021 at 1:03 am GMT • 3.9 hours ago

Mighty fine piece of writing.

unwoke , says: April 22, 2021 at 2:34 am GMT • 2.4 hours ago

“All the quasi-theological abstractions about “privilege†and “critical theory†melt away before one immutable truth: They need us; we don’t need them. Until we have the will to say so, all of us…â€

Us who? White liberals don’t want you & don’t need you & never will accept you, let alone agree any hare-brained scheme to ‘separate’ or have a racial homeland. And they’re using Blacks to tell you that.
And until we have the will to say so, nothing will result from DOA dreams about a separate state for “usâ€. A separate quasi-theological state abstraction based on race will melt away in immutable reality as quickly as the communist belief in a dictatorship of the proletariat abstraction. You have to make it here; there is no “us†anymore. Get ready for 2022 or civil war as you will, but there’s no escape to la-la land.

ruralguy , says: April 22, 2021 at 2:46 am GMT • 2.2 hours ago

In the 1960 census, Minnesota was 98.8% white. In 1973, Time magazine ran an article on the “Good Life in Minnesota.†It really was. We led the nation in education. In 1960, there were 1,400 violent crimes in the State. Now, it is 13,000 to 14,000. What happened? We had mass migration from Chicago. Our Minnesota socialists offered generous welfare benefits that attracted Chicago’s blacks and resettled many refugees from failed countries, like Somalia, to the State. The State went from low crime, highly educated, to much crime, much disorder, and a feeling we now live in a 3rd world country. Today, we have armed soldiers with machine guns on the corners of the streets in Minneapolis. You’d think the woke monsters that censure our news and who form the Chauvin jury would awake from their idiocy, but instead, they censure the facts, portray cops as the bad guys, portray drug abusing criminal degenerates like George Floyd as saints.

RoatanBill , says: April 22, 2021 at 3:07 am GMT • 1.8 hours ago

It looks like blacks are now untouchable. This can only cause them to increase their savage ways.

Realistically, wouldn’t it be better if every white person that wanted to be armed could do so, and do so without a gov’t permission slip? The reason we can’t pack a piece is because the gov’t says the police will protect us. I know that’s a lie, do you?

Get rid of street cops like Chauvin because they are the ones that aren’t there to protect us and end up in Floyd type situations. We should be demanding our Constitutional rights to carry a weapon if we want to AND have the laws changed so if we take out some POS there’s nothing to worry about.

Just think if a shop keepers in Portland put a shotgun round through their window through the same hole made by the brick some antifa or blm POS threw. All the rioting and destruction would have been cut off in seconds as these miscreants scatter. That’s the only way to handle the low life trash that currently has immunity via a justice system that is broken.

Eliminate street cops. Demand our Constitutional rights. Tell the gov’t to change the laws that allow for deadly force when attacked by some miscreant.

Robert Dolan , says: April 22, 2021 at 3:38 am GMT • 1.3 hours ago

It was a show trial.

A witch hunt.

And the Pollards were behind it.

Watch as cops refuse to police black areas….and black communities that are already under siege will EXPLODE in mayhem.

Magic Dirt , says: April 22, 2021 at 3:40 am GMT • 1.3 hours ago

Intentions. Not “intensionsâ€. Weird error.

Ray Caruso , says: April 22, 2021 at 4:09 am GMT • 47 minutes ago

No, Whites cannot police them, just like we cannot educate them. That’s why the only acceptable solution is to expel them from White countries. Any other course of action will mean the end of civilization because their presence is incompatible with civilized life. Fuck them all and their cuckservative fans.

[Apr 27, 2021] What Happens to Stocks When HOT Inflation Hits- - ZeroHedge

Apr 27, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

We've been outlining how the Fed and other central banks have unleashed an inflationary bubble in all assets truly an Everything Bubble.

We've already assessed the impact this is having on commodities, bonds and other asset classes. Today I want to assess the impact this will have on stocks.

To do that, we need to look at emerging markets.

Inflation is a common occurrence for emerging markets, primarily because more often than not they devalue their currencies, whether by choice or because the markets lose faith in their ability to pay off their debts.

Because of this, emerging markets can provide a glimpse into how inflation affects stocks. So, let's dig in.

Here is a chart of South Africa's stock market since 2003. As you can see, the stock market rallied significantly until 2010, but has effectively gone nowhere ever since then.

The reason this chart looks so lackluster is because it is priced in U.S. dollars. The $USD has been strengthening against the South African currency (the Rand) since 2010.

Watch what happens we price the South Africa stock market in its domestic currency (blue line). Suddenly, this stock market has been ROARING, rising some 750% since 2003. That means average annual gains of 41%!!!

Let's use another example.

Below is a chart of the Mexican stock market priced in $USD. Once again, we see a stock market that has done nothing of note for years.

Now let's price it in pesos (actually the exchange rate of pesos to $USD, but close enough).

You get the general idea. So if hot inflation is in the U.S. financial system, it would make perfect sense for stocks (denominated in the $USD which is losing value due to inflation) to ERUPT higher.

Something like I don't know what's happened since mid-2020?

Look, we all know what's going on here. The stock market is erupting higher as inflation rips into the financial system based on Fed NUCLEAR money printing. And we all know what comes when this bubble bursts.

On that note, we just published a Special Investment Report concerning FIVE secret investments you can use to make inflation pay you as it rips through the financial system in the months ahead.

The report is titled Survive the Inflationary Storm. And it explains in very simply terms how to make inflation PAY YOU.

We are making just 100 copies available to the public.

To pick up yours, swing by:

https://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/inflationstorm.html

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

[Apr 27, 2021] -They're Guessing- - Gundlach Rejects The Fed's -Inflation Is Transitory- Narrative - ZeroHedge

Apr 27, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Don't believe your lying eyes, will be the message tomorrow from The Fed's Jay Powell as he hypnotizes investors to believe that "inflation is transitory" and they have "the tools" to manage it.

'Bond King' Jeff Gundlach is not buying that line and told BNN Bloomberg in an interview this morning.

"...more importantly, I'm not sure why they think they know it's transitory... how do they know that?"

"...there's plenty of money-printing that's been going on, and we've seen commodity prices going up massively... home prices in the US are inflating very substantially... so there's a lot of inflation that's already baked in to input prices ."

Gundlach does admit that Powell has a point in the very near term as the prints were about to see "which could be as high as 4% [for CPI]" are off of year-ago, very depressed levels. "...what he means by transitory is that the base effect will lead to problems in the next few months but then the base effect will become less problematic."

But, Gundlach adds, "it's not clear to me that inflation is going to go back down to around 2 to 2.5%... we don't know, nobody knows... but we're most concerned with the fact that The Fed thinks they know."

This is worrisome because The Fed's track record is anything but inspiring...

"when I go back to the global financial crisis, when we almost had a complete meltdown of the financial system, Ben Bernanke completely missed all of the problems that led to the crisis."

Bernanke's infamous "contained to subprime... and subprime is only a sliver of the market" comments could be about to be trumped by Powell's "inflation is transitory" comments as Gundlach warns "there's plenty of indicators that suggest inflation is going to go higher and not just on a transitory basis."

The Fed is "trying to paint the picture" of control, but Gundlach tries to make clear: "they're guessing."

So, what does that mean for markets?

While some fear "we ain't seen nothing yet" in terms of yields rising (and multiple contraction), Gundlach notes that "it really depends on just how much manipulation the authorities are willing to do."

The billionaire fund manager notes that yields are "still very low... well below the current inflation rate... so we have negative yields everywhere on the yield curve."

It's also "hard to figure out who's going to buy the bonds," he notes, "as we are about to see issuance like we have never seen before." Foreigners have been selling bonds for years and domestically there is little demand, so Gundlach notes the only one left to soak up all this extra supply is The Federal Reserve, which has already expanded its balance sheet massively in the last 12 months.

"Who's going to buy all these many trillions of dollars of bonds? Foreigners have been selling for years and they've accelerated their selling in the last several quarters, domestic buyers are not exactly selling, but they're not adding to their holdings. So what's left to absorb all of the spawn supply is the Federal Reserve ."

"Left to true, free markets, bond yields at the long-end would obviously be higher than they are now."

And so who will buy all these bonds with negative real yields - The Fed... "and they have been transparent about their willingness and ability to buy bonds and expand their balance sheet with no ceiling."

Gundlach is talking about Yield Curve Control, reminding viewers that "The Fed can set the long-end wherever they want it... there's a precedent for this from back in the 1940s into the 50s," in order to ease the pain of the debt from World War II.

Of course, Gundlach warns ominously, "once they stopped the yield curve control, we went into a 27 year massive bear market in bonds, because of 'guns-n'butter' policies... which look like our policies today."

Simply put, he sees "an echo [in current markets and policies] of what happened in the late 1970s into the early 1980s."

His forecast is that "The Fed will allow the market forces to take yields to higher levels [10Y 2.25%] before stepping in."

The Bond King also note that the US stock market is very overvalued by virtually every important metric , and especially so versus foreign markets such as Asia and even Europe.

"I bought European equities a couple of weeks ago, literally for the first time in many years. I can't remember the last time I did it. And that's largely because I think the U.S. dollar is almost certain to decline over the intermediate to long term."

There's a lot more in the interview on the impact of Biden's stimmies and potential tax hikes...

https://webapps.9c9media.com/vidi-player/1.9.19/share/iframe.html?currentId=2189621&config=bnn/share.json&kruxId=&rsid=bellmediabnnbprod,bellmediaglobalprod&siteName=bnnb&cid=%5B%7B%22contentId%22%3A2189621%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.bnn%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22ctv.bnn%22%7D%7D%5D 10,571 48 NEVER


Sound of the Suburbs 26 minutes ago

We are going to train you in this Mickey Mouse economics that doesn't consider private debt and put you in charge of financial stability at the FED.

They don't stand a chance.

Financial stability arrived in the Keynesian era and was locked into the regulations of the time.

https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banking-crises.png

"This Time is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff has a graph showing the same thing (Figure 13.1 - The proportion of countries with banking crises, 1900-2008).

Neoclassical economics came back and so did the financial crises.

The neoliberals removed the regulations that created financial stability in the Keynesian era and put independent central banks in charge of financial stability.

Why does it go so wrong?

Richard Vague had noticed real estate lending balloon from 5 trillion to 10 trillion from 2001 – 2007 and knew there was going to be a financial crisis.

Richard Vague has looked at the data for financial crises going back 200 years and found the cause was nearly always runaway bank lending.

We put central bankers in charge of financial stability, but they use an economics that ignores the main cause of financial crises, private debt.

Most of the problems are coming from private debt.

The technocrats use an economics that ignores private debt.

The poor old technocrats don't stand a chance.

WITCH PELOSI 39 minutes ago

42" entry level lawnmower @ Home Depot, spring 2014, $999. Spring 2021 $1549. That's what I call inflation! And maybe a little greed to boot!

atomp 34 minutes ago

$30 is the new $10.

Sound of the Suburbs 25 minutes ago remove link

In 2008 the Queen visited the revered economists of the LSE and said "If these things were so large, how come everyone missed it?"

It's that neoclassical economics they use Ma'am, it doesn't consider private debt.

Here it is Ma'am, look it's obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAStZJCKmbU&list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZQLxg24CAiFgZYldtoCR-R&index=6

At 18 mins.

Let's get our experts in neoclassical economics to have a look.

"It was a black swan"

Not considering private debt is the Achilles' heel of neoclassical economics.

It is a black swan to them.

That's the problem.

[Apr 24, 2021] Gold The Coming Oil Shortage Part I - ZeroHedge

Apr 24, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

The important part for future production is that we make a clear distinction between those three supply sources (counting OPEC and the + states as one source). There are very different reasons for why production is down from each source and more importantly, what the long term prospects are.

In the second part of this report, we will discuss the prospects of each source in detail and show that the pandemic, and the ensuing price crash, have accelerate a process where global production will hardly be able to grow. At the same time, demand will not peak as quickly as people believe. This has the potential for a massive supply shortfall in the medium term.


smellmyfingers 2 hours ago

The only real shortage we have is truth.

We're all being fed a huge steaming pile of BS on everything. Oil build/draw. Crypto currencies based upon what? Fiat money, paper.

All these lying politicians and banksters just jockeying for positions to steal as much as they can as they push the human family to genocide.

wick7 38 minutes ago

Either way oil is going over the Seneca cliff and then Mad max here we come.

wick7 35 minutes ago

Every oil well that has ever existed has followed a bell curve. Pretending oil is infinite is like believing in a flat earth.

Galtmandu 1 hour ago (Edited)

This is some weak sauce analysis on the relationship between gold and energy prices. Here is a summary:

Energy prices and gold prices tend to correlate.

I have simplified,

Galtmandu

PS, your model is basically, interest rate policy, fed reserves of gold supply, and inflation - not groundbreaking stuff. You have created an algorithm that uses these three inputs to overlay on gold prices. Simple stuff. In fact, a basic polynomial exercise gets you your best fit.

Now, predict the movements of fed gold reserves, inflation, and interest rate policy. You can't. Therefore, your model has no predictive capability beyond your opinion. Otherwise, you would be spending your days sipping umbrella drinks.

If I seem aggressive about this stuff its because I hate this kind of faux-analytical b@llsh&t that is just sales propaganda.

Thrashed10 2 hours ago

I'm sitting mostly in cash right now. I do have a little exposure to oil. And food.

The oil market is so manipulated. Probably a smart move long term. But I have to trade so my kids get ice cream. I already know my trade for Monday if I feel motivated. I trade commodities and industrials. The boring stuff that is not sexy.

hanekhw 1 hour ago

Oil prices linked to the worthless dollar won't continue and this Administration is working hard to make our dollars even more worthless.

[Apr 19, 2021] Tucker- Elites pushed false narrative to get what they want - YouTube

Apr 19, 2021 | www.youtube.com


Gavriel Akhadu , 2 days ago

When Trump said that we are up against "The Invisible Enemy", this is the enemy he was talking about.

Dichroic Sounds , 22 hours ago (edited)

They've been doing this forever, we're just now becoming aware of it. The false narrative goes much deeper than stealing an election.

Jonathan Sterling , 1 day ago

The politician most responsible for pitting ordinary men and women against each other, ruining marriage among ordinary people, then accusing someone else of "having no soul" is ironic.

remigiusz wójcik , 1 day ago

The biggest problem of it is that media cannot be prosecuted for it and they definitely should be

Robert Jackson , 1 day ago

No war in the last 50 years was started without the support of the press. Julian Assange Truths like this are why they can't let him surface.

KyleHboc , 2 days ago

They knew the bounties story was fake and they all ran with it anyway.

Rogue Agent , 1 day ago

It's the Orwellian narrative: "We have enemies overseas." Enemies that aren't real enemies because we really don't actually want to start a war with them but we need to put on a show to keep the people distracted from looking at who are the real enemies inside their own country.

Cui Bono , 1 day ago

Biden is so full of it, as if he would dare say anything to Putin, then he really would find out how hot things can get behind the gym.