You are here

Daily Bell

Subscribe to Daily Bell feed
Updated: 11 hours 20 min ago

British Pol Claims Trump Marked for Assassination

Mon, 01/16/2017 - 14:41

British Politician Warns Trump ‘CIA Is Plotting Assassination’ – British politician George Galloway has warned Donald Trump the American deep state is engaged in a “soft coup d’etat” and the CIA is planning to assassinate him. “There is a clear and present danger on his life.” -Your News Wire

George Galloway is a somewhat popular but wildly leftist, English politician who says thing that other pols avoid. That’s why it’s no surprise that he is behind this assassination story.

Galloway has been involved in the Iraq-oil-for-food controversy along with numerous other controversies and has been kicked out of the Labor party years ago for making statements against the Iraq war.

His statements regarding a potential Trump assassination are similarly incendiary but like some other statements are, nonetheless, surely agreed to by some other British politicians and mainstream voters as well.

If I were him, I wouldn’t be going near any grassy knolls. I wouldn’t be on any motorcades in Dallas. I wouldn’t be traveling in an open-top car. “I’d be very careful if I was Donald Trump about my personal security. I think I’d have to employ guards to guard the guards.“

Galloway, who has served 31 years as an elected British Member of Parliament, also dismissed claims that Russia was interfering in US politics – and instead pointed the finger at British intelligence services.

“It turns out it was Britain that was interfering in the US presidential elections – not Russia. At least I’ve seen no evidence the Russians were, but there is plenty of evidence emerging about the British role.

Galloway’s remarks regarding a potential British role in any assassination is part of a large position that he has taken in the past regarding Britain. He makes no secret of this position that holds England in particular has a long history of smearing other governments.

“In 1925 something called the Zinoviev letter helped to bring down the first ever Labour government in Britain. It purported to be a letter from the head of the Comintern, Gregory Zinoviev, to his lieutenants in British politics … It had been produced by, you guessed it, British intelligence services. That bought down the Prime Ministership of Ramsey MacDonald – and this one is aimed at another Donald. Donald Trump.”

Galloway also says the coalition assembling in Washington against Trump is unusual because of its large size. In addition to the usual overt military industrial constituencies, it includes the Democratic opposition.

Galloway says the newly enlarged coalition has mixed Democrats in with Republicans they’d previously not had contact with such individuals such as John McCain. They have embraced the CIA as well, even though they know its communiques are often propagandistic and pro war.

It is the pro war element that Galloway is the most emphatic about. He claims that ultimately the entire coalition is pro-war because that’s how the groups involved make  money.

Galloway says that Trump wants to make money in ways that don’t involve war but that the top American outfits have found war to be the easiest way to make massive profits. For this reason, he says, Trump has been targeted.

Trump himself is aware of the bad blood between him and the CIA but may not believe it runs as deep as Galloway thinks it does. But, it is true, he is now proposing that the CIA is directly involved in leaking in various Tweets.

Conclusion: He may hope that his selection for the new CIA boss, presumably happening next week, will make a difference and bring the CIA under control. But many elements of the CIA are not directly under the control of the new head. Trump may be miscalculating.

This Bloomberg Editorial Claims Experts Are Necessary for Government – We Disagree

Sun, 01/15/2017 - 14:43

Sometimes the People Need to Call the Experts … The government about to take over in Washington has more billionaires than the Boston of Buckley’s time, but it seems willing to test the theory that academics can be dispensed with for the most part.

This article says that people ought to run the country except when “experts” do a better job, and that’s a lot of the time.

The article maintains that it “prefers citizens for broad questions of policy and society. The citizens are more likely to be in touch with the concerns of everyday life, and less likely to embrace utopian schemes. They are more likely to be politically and culturally diverse. Overall, they are more conservative in both the ‘small c’ sense of that word and the more political sense.”

Not only that, but the article stresses that Democrats might make better decision-makers than Republicans and that having the people rule might result in a less immigration, less free trade, more law and order and more nationalism.

But – and there’s a big but – when it comes to the “the nuts and bolts of governance,” experts are preferable according to the article.

Typically I would prefer to be ruled by the Harvard faculty, even recognizing the biases of experts. They understand the importance of applying expertise to complex problems, and they realize many issues do not respond well to common-sense fixes.

The citizenry usually cannot make good decisions, or for that matter expert appointments, when technocracy is required.

If I had to pick a single area where faculty rule would be most appropriate, it is the Federal Reserve. (The Environmental Protection Agency would be another candidate.)

The article goes on to defend this preference. Few citizens, it says, understand much about inflation, interest or shadow banking. And its no accident, it adds, that recent Fed chairman have come from toplevel academic environments.

In contrast, normal people would just talk about easy money or hard money. The article disapproves of such talk when it comes to specific problems. In fact, the article is concerned about the possibility the Fed is headed away from a reliance on expertise.

The article is also concerned about the trend away from acadmic advice generally. President-elect Donald Trump has seemingly emphasized business sucess above almost anything else.

Trump’s attraction to alternative views when it comes to vaccines is also “worrying.” Generally there’s a “time and place” for generalist viewpoints but such viewpoints have been overdone.

For us, the problem of the Federal Reserve is easily solved. It ought to be done away with. Vaccines ought to be entirely voluntary. And business success is not necessarily better than other kinds of success. Again, when it comes to appointing people to office, the main priority ought to be offering fewer of them – a lot fewer.

Conclusion: The article stresses the considered opinions that academics can bring to the table. But outfits like the Fed are monopolies and surely not worth maintaining to begin with. Having academic commentaries on such things doesn’t make them better, it just obscures their essential worthlessness.

 

Trump Meets With Professor Who Thinks Global Warming Is Positive

Sat, 01/14/2017 - 16:01

Happer is not wrong that carbon dioxide appears to bolster plant growth — the greening up of the Arctic has, indeed, been observed. But that comes with many other consequences, including melting of glaciers and thawing of permafrost, which can emit still more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. -Washington Post

Physicist William Happer believes there is global warming but unlike most, he believes it is good for us.

The Princeton physicst questions whether we should have any concerns about it at all. “Increased agricultural yields and modest warming far outweigh any harm.”

Even a doubling of  carbon dioxide would not cause much real warming, he says, perhaps 0.5 and 1.5 degrees of warming. The UN believes the figures are more like 1.5 degrees – 4.5 degrees C.

Trees, plants and various farm-products are currently handicapped by too little carbon dioxide, not too much. More CO2 will help the world not hurt it, he thinks.

E&E News reported on the meeting but said it wasn’t certain whether the prof was under consideration for a post with the administration. Various science and energy positions remain open.

More:

Happer is an eminent physicist who held prominent positions at the Department of Energy, as well as at his university, and has 200 scientific publications to his name.

But in 2009 testimony, he went even further in countering the scientific consensus on climate change, asserting that “the current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.” Most scientists have been plain and very clear that carbon dioxide is indeed the cause of most of the current warming.

In 2011, Happer wrote a paper for First Things that characterized global warming as a “climate crusade.” He said it was based on distorted science and involved money hungry goverments and other manipulators.

Trump could certainly be considering him for a post given his recent interest in Robert Kennedy Jr. Kennedy has been an outspoken critic of vaccines, which he believes are laced with thimerosal, a chemical that may be causing autism in some who receive them.

Kennedy has reportedly been offered a role in the Trump Administration though the administration has denied it.

Bringing Kennedy onboard would cause a crisis among those who receive funds from the pharmaceutical industry. The industy reportedly lost some $20 billion when Trump criticized it during his recent press conference.

A huge amount of money is at stake based on what The Daily Bell considers to be false narratives, memes that are made up by elites to frighten people and make them pay in money and time for unnecessary alternatives.

Global warming is a false meme along with vaccines a number of other popular perspectives that people voice without doing any research, such as “overpopulation.”

If Trump does take on board numerous people with alternative points of view, it could make a big difference in the way such alternatives are viewed. It could also stem the steady march toward globalism that is occuring as part of a belief in such global warming, vaccines etc.

That’s because such beliefs are almost invariably accompanied by the notion that government should lead the way to remedies, the bigger the better.

Conclusion: Those who do not believe this tend to think government should stop trying to make such big changes. These people think that even if changes are taking place they ought to be left alone because government interference will not make things better, only worse.

Trump Meets With Professor Who Thinks Global Warming Is Positive

Sat, 01/14/2017 - 13:49

Energy and Environment
Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says global warming is good for us
By Chris Mooney January 13 at 3:49 PM

Physicist William Happer arrives for a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower in New York City on Jan. 13. (Albin Lohr-Jones/European Pressphoto Agency/Pool)
This story has been updated.

Yes, Donald Trump met with Al Gore. But on Friday, according to the Trump transition team, the president-elect also met with William Happer, a Princeton professor of physics who has been a prominent voice in questioning whether we should be concerned about human-caused climate change.

In 2015 Senate testimony, Happer argued that the “benefits that more [carbon dioxide] brings from increased agricultural yields and modest warming far outweigh any harm.”

While not denying outright that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will warm the planet, he also stated that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only cause between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees Celsius of planetary warming. The most recent assessment of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts the figure much higher, at between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees C.

“All trees, and many other plants, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, etc., are handicapped because, by historical standards, there currently is too little, not too much, CO2 in the atmosphere,” read a slide contained in Happer’s testimony.

“A dispassionate analysis of the science indicates that more CO2 will bring benefits, not harm to the world,” he also said in the testimony.

Follow
Timothy Cama ✔ @Timothy_Cama
William Happer, a leading climate skeptic who worked at DOE under Bush 41, is at Trump Tower, per pool
3:22 PM – 13 Jan 2017
9 9 Retweets 20 20 likes
Happer did not answer questions on his way into the elevator to meet with Trump, according to pool reports. He did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Post.

E&E News, which was apparently first to report on the meeting, noted that it was “unclear” whether Happer might be under consideration for energy or science positions in the administration. There certainly remain many of those to fill.

Happer is not wrong that carbon dioxide appears to bolster plant growth — the greening up of the Arctic has, indeed, been observed. But that comes with many other consequences, including melting of glaciers and thawing of permafrost, which can emit still more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

“While we are perhaps lucky that CO2 has this effect on plant physiology, in addition to being a greenhouse gas, it is not our ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to our ongoing emissions of CO2,” climate scientist Richard Betts of the U.K.’s Hadley Centre wrote on the subject recently.
Happer is an eminent physicist who held prominent positions at the Department of Energy, as well as at his university, and has 200 scientific publications to his name. But in 2009 testimony, he went even further in countering the scientific consensus on climate change, asserting that “the current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.” Most scientists have been plain and very clear that carbon dioxide is indeed the cause of most of the current warming.

In a 2011 essay in the journal First Things, Happer further argued that “the ‘climate crusade’ is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types — even children’s crusades — all based on contested science and dubious claims.”

Energy and Environment newsletter
The science and policy of environmental issues.
Sign up
The essay triggered an in-depth rebuttal from Michael MacCracken, a climate scientist who formerly directed the U.S. Global Change Research Program in the Bill Clinton administration, and who characterized it as “so misleading that, in my view, it merits a paragraph-by-paragraph response.”

The meeting may be most noteworthy as an example of how Trump plans to get scientific advice — through meetings with people whose views are not necessarily part of the mainstream. It’s not a model that most scientists will approve of.

Trump has met individually not only with Happer, but also with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose views on the safety of vaccines have been rejected by scientific authorities. The meeting has caused alarm in the medical community.

The president-elect has not yet named a presidential science adviser.

Trump Vaccine Experts Are Not Industry Types and Might Recommend Real Change

Fri, 01/13/2017 - 09:01

Trump Needs Vaccine Experts, Not Conspiracy Theorists … Trump could have turned to any number of reputable experts to learn about vaccine safety. Instead, he went straight for the fringe. -Daily Beast

Donald Trump supposedly picked Robert Kennedy Jr. to head a commission on vaccines and autism, causing a good deal of anxiety among mainstream media.

Trump has since denied that any decision has been made, but Kennedy has been telling people the offer was extended and presumably accepted.

This is the same mainstream media that take a huge bundles of cash from pharmaceutical advertisers.  Because of this it is hard to tell how many spokespeople are genuinely behind government pro-vaccine positions and how many are merely doing what they’re told when it comes to voicing hyper-partisan positions.

They’re certainly a lot of pro-vaccine types in the world and they have a lot of negatives about diminishing vaccines in the slightest or in any other way cutting  back on them.

Imagine you’re the president-elect of the United States and you wanted to know more about vaccine safety … Donald Trump … turned to two … people.  First, he turned to Andrew Wakefield, the British researcher who in 1998 published a paper in the Lancet claiming that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine caused autism.

In August 2016, Trump met with Wakefield. At the time they met, a British journalist named Brian Deer had already found that Wakefield’s paper had misrepresented clinical data, biological data, and the sources of funding for the work. For these reasons, the Lancet retracted the paper and the General Medical Council in England stripped Wakefield of his license to practice medicine.

… Apparently, at least according to Wakefield, there has been a vast international conspiracy to hide the truth—a conspiracy that involves hundreds of researchers in seven countries on three continents, all deeply in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.

On Jan. 10, 2017, Donald Trump then turned to one more person for information about vaccine safety: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy believes that thimerosal, an ethyl-mercury-containing preservative that hasn’t been used in vaccines given to young children since 2001, is causing severe developmental delays including autism.

So Trump may have asked both Wakefield and Kennedy to provide him formal input on vaccines. Wakefield in particular is anathema to vaccine partisans. They’ve done everything they can to kill him and his career short of outright murder.

Kennedy is just as bad from their point of view. Kennedy has been after thimerosal which is still a vaccine additive, and one he says can do a great deal of damage. This Daily Beast article claims Kennedy is confused and making charges that don’t exist.

Why does Kennedy also persist? The article asks. The answer is the same: Conspiracy, it answers.

But the article never follows up on the so-called conspiracy. It never discusses the summary of test results years ago that supposedly confirmed autism’s prevalence that were never made public.

It never discusses the unfairness of Wakefield apparent expulsion as a doctor in the UK. It never talks about question regarding those who persecuted Wakefield.

It talks about a conspiracy but never discusses specific charges. This is because in part discussing such charges would inevitably involve dealing with specific evidence. Such evidence is at least a good deal more gray than these articles suggest.

The article concludes by saying Donald Trump is a lucky man and can avail himself of the best advisors the vaccine community has to offer. But all the names the article offers up are pro-vaccine.

Donald Trump himself is not anti-vaccine. He has questions about massive vaccine doses being mandated at a young age. Such doses, he believes along with others, may be causing reactions in certain children including autism.

Conclusion: That’s surely not such a bad idea. And it’s one worth investigating.

Austrian Economics Is Popular and Forceful

Thu, 01/12/2017 - 10:13

Tribal Warfare in Economics Is a Thing of the Past  … I still remember going to a graduate student barbecue my first month at the University of Michigan. I told a woman from another department that I was studying economics, and she asked me: “What school?” Blinking, I replied “This one. The University of Michigan.” That wasn’t what she was asking, of course. She wanted to know which tribe of economists I belonged to — the Chicago school, the Austrian school and so on. But to me, the question made no sense, because academic economists in this day and age are not actually divided into warring schools of thought. And it’s best that people stopped thinking about economists in those terms. -Bloomberg

This is wrong. There is no other way for people who understand economics to think about it except in terms of at least two warring groups. The article itself actually makes this point itself.

It says:

This divide was somewhat true in the 1930s, when debates were dominated by figures like John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises writing literary treatises about the Great Depression. But today it’s complete fantasy. The ideas of the original Austrians have diffused into the academic mainstream, while the few economists who still call themselves “Austrian” are a tiny, vestigial minority working at a couple of locations like the Mises Institute and George Mason University. Meanwhile, the word “Keynesian” is applied to a huge, diverse range of ideas, but few academics would put themselves in that ideological box.

This sounds as if the statement is  backing up the article’s larger point but it’s not. The telltale point, above, is where the article points out: “The few economists who still call themselves ‘Austrian’ are a tiny, vestigial minority working at a couple of locations like Mises Institute and George Mason University.

This is simply not true. One can minimize the role of Mises by calling it “tiny” and “vestigial” but this does not make it so. When one adds in the many individuals educated by Mises plus those eventually make career in the field, the amount of those influenced is large indeed.

Once upon a time, maybe 15 years ago, It was true that Mises was tiny. At the time founder Lew Rockwell was presiding over a group stunted by the establishment’s desire to bury “Austrian economics.” But Austrian economics has exploded in the past decade and more.

The proof is in Lew Rockwell’s own self-named site Lew Rockwell.com. It is the 22,000 largest site in the world and the 5,000 largest site in the US.

There are many reasons economics isn’t even slightly about Keynesians versus Austrians anymore. First, moshit economists don’t work in macroeconomics, and to these people the old debates are mostly irrelevant. Second, economics has developed a common language, heavy on math and statistics, that allows researchers to mix and match ideas from the old paradigms.  …

The free-market ideas promulgated by the likes of Milton Friedman, George Stigler and other Chicago luminaries of old have diffused into the general economics profession, where they have mixed with and been tempered by other ideas and traditions. The old Chicago School is no more.

This is more of the same nonsense. The Chicago School may have diminished but it was never a real school in the sense the Austrian school was. The Austrian school was born out of the new thinking back in the 1800s that gave rise to modern economics. Other modern schools rose up in reaction to it.

Today’s schools are math heavy but that doesn’t make them correct. Substituting math mumbo jumbo for reality complicates equations but doesn’t do much else.

Real Austrians are not big on math because math is often used to obscure the truth that economics cannot be used to forecast the future in most cases. Austrian economics is truthful economics because it explains that the market is at the center of economics, not anything else.

It is true that neo-Keynesian  economics remains a much larger discipline but that’s mostly because jobs are available for those willing to lie about their prospects.

In truth, economics always leads back to the market, and the market is not predictable.

Austrian economics has had a high-profile impact on economics just as it did in the 1800s and 1900s. That’s one reason the government again wants to ban it.

Conclusion: But you can’t kill a good idea. You can delay its fruition but not forever. Austrian economics will continue to move ahead.

The Best Way for Economists to Stay Relevant Today Is to Go Out of Business

Wed, 01/11/2017 - 10:54

How Economists Can Stay Relevant Under Trump … Economists are going to have to approach things a bit differently if they want to stay relevant in the Trump age. Political economy research is going to become more important. Some humility wouldn’t hurt. And they should look someplace other than the federal government to test their ideas.  This is what I took away from this past weekend’s American Economic Association’s annual conference, where I heard a panel with five Nobel-winning economists on the topic of “Where is the world economy headed?” – Bloomberg

God willing, they can’t. Economics, as a profession is part of central banking. Almost no economics, with the exception of Austrian economics rejects central banking.

But economics as a part of central banking includes price fixing. Whenever central bankers meet they fix short term interest rates as a matter of course. Short term rates then influence longer term rates.

Price fixing itself is not endorsed by economics. It is a contradiction because economics as a profession seeking to create an environment where economics can go to work effectively. Every price fix tears down the functioning of economics.

More:

One lesson of Trump’s election is that technocracy — the idea that wise, expert leaders should steer policy for the good of all — is out of favor. Economists may still be the toast of the American and British elite, but that elite has been sidelined by a populist wave.

Free trade, although not the most important issue facing the country, was a hugely symbolic battle. The elite, supported by the vast majority of the econ profession, took the virtues of free trade as a given; the general public disagreed vehemently with the expert consensus.

The eventual victory of the populists has caused many economists to question whether the public will listen to them again in their lifetimes.

This is another reason why economics should severely restrain itself as a profession. (And possibly go out business.) Economics has encouraged technocracy, the regime of the few making decisions for the many.

Economics is the study of the discipline of work and as such does not include statements and proscriptions encouraging a small handful of people to make economic policy.

Economics as a matter of course should back the free market. The free market IS economics. When economics backs something other than the free market, it is not backing functional economics anymore. It is backing something else.

Technocracy is also a price fix and a very obnoxious one. When just a few make economic decisions for the many, the fabric of economics is increasingly threadbare. The best economics encourages a wide variety of financial actors to make decisions in their own enlightened self-interest.

Economics is all about freedom but modern economics is all about restricting freedom and choosing who can make economic decisions for others. This is exactly the reverse of what it should be.

Ultimately economics is not much needed as a profession because it is proactive. It tries to tell government and corporations what to do to make business and profits better but in doing so only makes the economic climate worse.

We don’t need more economic advice and nostrums. We need fewer economics and certainly fewer economic proscriptions that encourage people to “do” things beyond buying and selling.

The best thing that economics could do in the modern era is to shrink itself drastically and return to a science advocating free market solutions. It should advocate as little government as possible and the greatest amount of self-determination for the most people possible.

Conclusion:  If it did this, It would become a real profession again, albeit a smaller one, surviving in the nooks and crannies of academia. But that is where it should be.

Government Prosecution of Errant VW Execs Is Out Of Control

Tue, 01/10/2017 - 14:50

Bloomberg Volkswagen Executives in Germany to Face U.S. Charges in Diesel … Some of Volkswagen AG’s top executives may find it risky to leave Germany as U.S. prosecutors prepare to charge more company officials.  Oliver Schmidt, a VW executive, was arrested in Miami as he was returning to Germany from vacation and faces charges of misleading regulators about the automaker’s diesel-emissions cheating devices. Prosecutors are preparing to charge more high-level German-based executives in the case, a person familiar with the matter said.  Schmidt’s arrest caught many VW executives by surprise, including some attending an auto show in Detroit this week, according to another person.

Were VW officials dishonest and manipulative? Possibly so. Did anyone get badly harmed by their emissions “cheating.” Any hard evidence of that? Probably not.

This is a witch hunt seemingly of greater urgency than catching pedophile priests.  Why? Because VW has money.   White collar crime does pay — for the government, in the fines they manage to extract from the perpetrators.

The way the article reads, this guy’s own lawyer, told the US government he’d be in the USA on holiday. They arrest him as he is about to board the plane home and throw him in a brown jumpsuit and leg irons.

More:

Lawyers for some senior executives in Germany have already warned their clients not to leave the country, according to a third person.  The arrest and the looming charges against senior executives show that the year-long investigation into the emissions cheating is coming to a head in the final days of the Obama administration.

A multibillion-dollar settlement between the carmaker and the Justice Department will probably come this week, people familiar with the matter have said. VW admitted last year that about 11 million diesel cars worldwide were outfitted with so-called defeat devices, embedded algorithms used to game emissions tests.

Schmidt, 48, who was VW’s liaison with U.S. environmental regulators, appeared in federal court in Miami Monday, where a judge ordered him held in custody as a flight risk. His lawyer sought Schmidt’s release, saying his client had alerted the government he was visiting and was willing to speak with investigators and face charges.

That wasn’t enough for the US though. The court filing is a kind of road map of charges aimed at high level German execs.

Other senior levels execs could be arrested this way and the result will be that such execs will stop travelling to the US. The government and VW have been trying to reach a full settlement before Donald Trump is sworn in as president of Jan. 20.

VW has admitted to cheating regarding emission regulations that could be bypassed using algorithms that could lower the amount of pollution generated during testing. Some execs are thus under scrutiny in both Germany and the US.

But really one wonders just how bad the emissions problem really is. In fact from a libertarian standpoint one could make an argument that such standards are not necessary at all.

If it were really a problem, certain manufacturers might make an issue out of the pollution and raise prices on cars that polluted less. Additionally, individuals might put together lists of cars that polluted too much, thus putting pressure on those companies to do less polluting.

If it were a serious issue ultimately as well, insurance companies might get  involved and raise rates on polluters.

What people would not do is make pollution an offense demanding jailing. There probably isn’t even any proof that the kind of pollution generated by VS diesel cars makes one sick … or sicker. Diesel cars are even known for being less polluting than non-Diesel vehicles.

Conclusion: The idea of putting people in jail for minor infractions such as circumventing air pollution requirements is ridiculous. You’re not killing anyone. You’re not even injuring them. It’s just one more way to use government monopoly power to extract money from people who otherwise rightly wouldn’t have to pay.

Could NATO Try to Divide Russia Up?

Mon, 01/09/2017 - 12:29

NATO seeks to break up Russia into small client states … Scores of people have staged a protest in a northern German port city against the deployment and transport of NATO troops and weapons through the city. The protesters marched through the city of Bremerhaven, holding signs and banners that read, “No NATO deployment! End the militaristic march against Russia!” and “Out of NATO.” -Press TV

According to this article, and we have mentioned it before as well, NATO wants to break up Russia. We have alluded to this because there is reportedly information in a book by David Rockefeller regarding this plan.

The idea is to take large countries and turn them into smaller ones. This has two ramifications. First it allows countries to pretend they are escaping from the new world order when in fact they are reinforcing their position in it.

Second, it supposedly allows these countries to more easily become part of what their residents fear they are doing,

“The pretext for NATO expansion and the continuation of NATO was the bombing of Belgrade by Bill Clinton in 1999, which was part of an orchestrated US plan to break up the last nominally socialist country, and very independent country in Europe, which was Yugoslavia, and they succeeded and happily have a group of very small powerless client states.

What NATO did in Yugoslavia may also planned for Russia. The idea is that Russia will be easier to handle if it is broken up than if it is kept as one large entity.

John  Steppling is quoted in the article as saying that the rhetoric against Russia is intended to  “delegitimize” US President-elect Donald Trump.

In fact, according to Reince Priebus, Trump has changed his mind about Russian intelligence. He is now said to have acknowledged that Russian intelligence was aimed at influencing American elections.

If true, this would be a significant change. But we would like to hear it from Donald himself.

It has seemed as if there is a kind of civil war going on between the CIA and Trump and between globalists and anti-globalists. Within this context, Trump wants to dismantle portions of the CIA, which he says have become politicized.

Dismantling portions of the CIA would make a big difference in the US. The CIA in our view is at least partially controlled by the  banking establishment in London, which uses various forms of central bank issued money to maintain control.

The goals of the CIA seem to be aligned at the top with the City of London. Both apparently seek globalization in which the process and outcome will be handled by Anglo Saxon interests.

Conclusion: The use of the CIA to attack and break up Russia and other large states would be in keeping with this larger agenda. Whether it will happen is an open question. But if the City ultimately controls the CIA, as we believe they do, then we are facing a prolonged foreign adventure aimed at destabilizing Russia. Time will tell.

CIA Bases Congressional Russian Hacking Report on Possibilities, Not Truth

Sun, 01/08/2017 - 11:45

Intel report warns Moscow will try to influence elections in countries allied to US. The declassified version of the report warned that other countries were also vulnerable to attack. – Independent

Intelligence in the US is becoming even more emphatic about the Russian threat to elections, claiming that Russians will start to disrupt the elections of other countries like they are disrupting American ones.

The trouble with this is that intel agencies, specifically the CIA, have not yet proven that Russia has done what the CIA claims it has done.

On Friday, it claimed that Russia had attacked the US with specific hacks. But at least one top official knowledegable about hacking pointed out that using such eminently traceable hacks was unlike the Russians. The entire report was false, he claimed. The Russians wouldn’t have use such easily detected means to accomplish a hacking. If they’d actually done it, they be subtle not obvious.

But a highly classified report, given to president Barack Obama, and sections of which were made public on Friday, reveals that the CIA, the FBI and the NSA all concurred that Russia used cyber warfare and state-funded social media “trolls” to spread negative information about Hillary Clinton and to help Mr Trump win the election.

Russia reportedly gained access to the Democratic National Committee servers from May 2015 to June the following year and passed on Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s and Ms Clinton’s emails to WikiLeaks. In return, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was given a platform on state-run media outlet RT to criticise the US.

The CIA called the attacks “multifaceted”. Mr. Putin has denied anything to do with the attacks. The report has also been dismissed by Trump, but he has said cybersecurity should be strengthened nonetheless.

The reality is that the CIA probably needs something to do with its time and fighting against Russians seems like a good way of bolstering the CIA’s importance.

The CIA like much else, is at least partially controlled out of London’s City, by the bankers there. These are the same central bankers that have installed monopoly cental banks around the world. The CIA, from what we can tell, at the top, has people who work directly with these London financiers.

The CIA’s proof regarding Russian hacking is considerably mitigated by the CIA’s lack of ability to say forthrightly that the Russians did the things they say they did. If the Russians did it, the CIA should say so clearly and simply. It will not.

Now with the same lack of evidence, the CIA is warning about overseas targeting of US allies. There is no more certainty regarding these arguments than CIA suppositions that the US itself has been targeted.

Conclusion: None of this is backed up by conclusions, only by theories that may well have a political component to them. The CIA is making work for itself and upping the level of fear-based rhetoric without any proof what they are saying is true.

 

 

 

Bank of England’s Andrew Haldane Admits Economic Forecasting Errors

Sat, 01/07/2017 - 16:05

Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting … Andrew Haldane says his profession must adapt to regain the trust of the public, claiming narrow models ignored ‘irrational behaviour.’  The Bank of England’s chief economist has admitted his profession is in crisis having failed to foresee the 2008 financial crash and having misjudged the impact of the Brexit vote. -Guardian

The top economist at England’s chief central bank has said economists are often wrong. He called critisisms about lack of accuracy in forecasting a “fair cop” and said the industry would have to do a better job.

More:

Andrew Haldane, said it was “a fair cop” referring to a series of forecasting errors before and after the financial crash which had brought the profession’s reputation into question.

Blaming the failure of economic models to cope with “irrational behaviour” in the modern era, the economist said the profession needed to adapt to regain the trust of the public and politicians.

Before Brexit, the actual head of the English central bank, Mark Carney, said that agreeing to Brexit would cause grave economic problems, So far that hasn’t happened yet. Then there was Lehman Brothers, which was supposed to have little impact on England. Instead it had a lot.

Haldane was speaking at the Institute for Government in central London. Despite his negative message, he was upbeat. He believed that economic forecasting  could improve a good deal.

Nonetheless, Haldane is bothered by criticisms and is worried forecasts will not be taken seriously if they continus to be wrong,

Former Tory ministers, including the former foreign secretary William Hague and the justice secretary Michael Gove, last year attacked the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, for predicting a dramatic slowdown in growth if the country voted to leave the EU.

The statement regarding Brexit’s bad effects was even taken as hoax by such individuals as Treasury’s Boris Johnson. Boris was pro Brexit. He said the chief central banker was criticizing Brexit just to make it sound bad.

Prime Minister Theresa May, criticised the bank as well. The bank should not have cut rates and boosted stimulus after the vote. It later turned out the economy was OK without the stimulus.

Haldane admitted the bank did not project such economic strength. But he also believed the timing was off, not the underlying forecast.

“I think, near-term, the data, the evidence we’ve been accumulating since the referendum, has surprised to the upside. [There’s been] greater resilience, in particular among consumers and among the housing market, than we had expected. Has that led us to fundamentally change our view on the fortunes of the economy looking forward over the next several years? Not really.”

And he is said to have added: “This is more a question, I think, of timing than of a fundamental reassessment of the fortunes of the economy. So back in November we published a forecast for inflation which was the highest we’ve ever published. And the forecast for growth in the UK economy, that was the lowest we have ever published.  We are still expecting this rather difficult balancing act for monetary policy with a slowing, not a huge slowing, but nonetheless a material slowing, during the course of next year as the effects of higher prices in the shops begin to chew away a little at the spending power of consumers and cause them to rein back a little in their spending.”

He even blamed British citizens for a lack of numeracy. So we can see that Haldane may want to cast the net of blame a good deal wider than just central bank affililiated economists.

In truth when it comes to economics, especially as it pertains to central banks, Haldane is mostly if not entirely wrong. The Bank of England is basically a government monopoly. Economists affiliated with it will certainly take positions agreeing with it.

The Bank of England was pro EU and thus apt to foresee some sort of calamitous event if Brexit passed. You won’t get a full range of predictions until the bank ceases to be a monopoly and economists don’t feel the need to answer in a certain way.

Conclusion: Until then, Haldane can say whatever he wants but important economists will continue to make forcasts that favor the English central bank for the sake of their jobs and promotions. As central bank outlooks continue to worsen, forecasts among many senior economists will grow even more inaccurate as a result.

Bank of England’s Andew Haldane Admits Economic Forecasting Errors

Sat, 01/07/2017 - 14:59

Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting … Andrew Haldane says his profession must adapt to regain the trust of the public, claiming narrow models ignored ‘irrational behaviour.’  The Bank of England’s chief economist has admitted his profession is in crisis having failed to foresee the 2008 financial crash and having misjudged the impact of the Brexit vote. -Guardian

The top economist at England’s chief central bank has said economists are often wrong. He called critisisms about lack of accuracy in forecasting a “fair cop” and said the industry would have to do a better job.

More:

Andrew Haldane, said it was “a fair cop” referring to a series of forecasting errors before and after the financial crash which had brought the profession’s reputation into question.

Blaming the failure of economic models to cope with “irrational behaviour” in the modern era, the economist said the profession needed to adapt to regain the trust of the public and politicians.

Before Brexit, the actual head of the English central bank, Mark Carney, said that agreeing to Brexit would cause grave economic problems, So far that hasn’t happened yet. Then there was Lehman Brothers, which was supposed to have little impact on England. Instead it had a lot.

Haldane was speaking at the Institute for Government in central London. Despite his negative message, he was upbeat. He believed that economic forecasting  could improve a good deal.

Nonetheless, Haldane is bothered by criticisms and is worried forecasts will not be taken seriously if they continus to be wrong,

Former Tory ministers, including the former foreign secretary William Hague and the justice secretary Michael Gove, last year attacked the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, for predicting a dramatic slowdown in growth if the country voted to leave the EU.

The statement regarding Brexit’s bad effects was even taken as hoax by such individuals as Treasury’s Boris Johnson. Boris was pro Brexit. He said the chief central banker was criticizing Brexit just to make it sound bad.

Prime Minister Theresa May, criticised the bank as well. The bank should not have cut rates and boosted stimulus after the vote. It later turned out the economy was OK without the stimulus.

Haldane admitted the bank did not project such economic strength. But he also believed the timing was off, not the underlying forecast.

“I think, near-term, the data, the evidence we’ve been accumulating since the referendum, has surprised to the upside. [There’s been] greater resilience, in particular among consumers and among the housing market, than we had expected. Has that led us to fundamentally change our view on the fortunes of the economy looking forward over the next several years? Not really.”

And he is said to have added: “This is more a question, I think, of timing than of a fundamental reassessment of the fortunes of the economy. So back in November we published a forecast for inflation which was the highest we’ve ever published. And the forecast for growth in the UK economy, that was the lowest we have ever published.  We are still expecting this rather difficult balancing act for monetary policy with a slowing, not a huge slowing, but nonetheless a material slowing, during the course of next year as the effects of higher prices in the shops begin to chew away a little at the spending power of consumers and cause them to rein back a little in their spending.”

He even blamed British citizens for a lack of numeracy. So we can see that Haldane may want to cast the net of blame a good deal wider than just central bank affililiated economists.

In truth when it comes to economics, especially as it pertains to central banks, Haldane is mostly if not entirely wrong. The Bank of England is basically a government monopoly. Economists affiliated with it will certainly take positions agreeing with it.

The Bank of England was pro EU and thus apt to foresee some sort of calamitous event if Brexit passed. You won’t get a full range of predictions until the bank ceases to be a monopoly and economists don’t feel the need to answer in a certain way.

Conclusion: Until then, Haldane can say whatever he wants but important economists will continue to make forcasts that favor the English central bank for the sake of their jobs and promotions. As central bank outlooks continue to worsen, forecasts among many senior economists will grow even more inaccurate as a result.

President Obama Is No Military Marvel

Fri, 01/06/2017 - 20:20

Obama awarded Pentagon’s medal for distinguished public service Sarah Palin criticized the decision, saying “this is what happens when you grow up thinking every kid gets a trophy.” -Washington Post

President Barrack Obama recently received a medal from the Department of Defence. The medal for Distinguished Public Service was awarded by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

The award was well received by those around Obama, but not by his critics who used the award to further criticize the President during his last days.

Among these critics were Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Palin criticized the decision Wednesday night, saying “this is what happens when you grow up thinking every kid gets a trophy.” She shared a Breitbart News Network story with the sarcastic, if incorrect, headline: “President Obama awards himself Distinguished Public Service Medal.”

Obama said Wednesday that he has had “no greater privilege and no greater honor” than serving as commander in chief of the U.S. military. Presidents and service members take a similar oath, he said.

The award is actually a rather common one, as many senior officials have gotten it, especially, recently. Two previous presidents received it, one after the other. It recognizes, “exceptionally distinguished service of significance to the Department of Defense as a whole or distinguished service of such exceptional significance.”

“The service or assistance may have been rendered at considerable personal sacrifice and inconvenience that was motivated by patriotism, good citizenship, and a sense of public responsibility,” a fact sheet said.

Obama said he had  “made a promise [to serviceman], which to the best of my abilities I tried to uphold every single day since. That I would only send you into harm’s way when it was absolutely necessary, with a strategy and well defined goals, with the equipment and support that you needed to get the job done. Because that’s what you rightfully expect and that is what you rightfully deserve.”

In fact Obama did not configure various campaigns this way. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria are places where servicemen are not being properly prepared. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence that Obama helped found and maintain ISIS, which is functioning as the enemy of those very same servicemen.

Conclusion: Obama accepted the medal because it helps build up his reputation with those who don’t closely follow administration politics. But for those who do, Obama’s apperent gratification is as insincere as the look on his face. He doesn’t deserve such an award and he knows it.

 

Supposed Russian Hack Further Illustrates the Divide Between CIA and Trump

Thu, 01/05/2017 - 13:34

No Russian attempt to hack Vermont power grid found … Burlington Electric Department now says code associated with Russian hackers wasn’t on its employee’s laptop. Someone browses the internet on his work laptop. The laptop connects to a potentially malicious IP address. Nothing happens. -CNet

On Friday evening, there was a report that a Russian hacker had penetrated the US electrical grid, but on Monday the allegation had been retracted. This is significant because such allegations often do not receive the same coverage the initial allegation.

The idea that the Russians are regular and significant hackers of such things as the American elections has been made but not proven. However, various entites in the US including the CIA have made these allegations nonetheless.

As a result of CIA fingerpointing in particular, along with regular media pickups by such prominent media as the Washington Post, many believe the allegations have been proven when they have not been.

More:

On Friday evening, however, a similar and apparently benign event led to a report that Russian hackers may have penetrated the US electrical grid through a Vermont utility.

The report, written by The Washington Post and summarized by CNET News, said Burlington Electric Department had found code associated with Russian hackers on an employee’s computer. Initially the Post reported the hackers had penetrated the grid, but then said the code was isolated to a single employee laptop.

Further investigation further downplayed these reports. Eventually it was realized that the computer “had only visited an internet address that is sometimes associated with malicious activity.”

According to later Post reporting, the newspaper initially leaked the story without proper fact checking. The paper did not have all the information and should have waited for officials to investigate further.

Eventually investigators did discover malicious code but not fom Russia. It was software called Neutrino “commonly used by cybercriminals to deliver malware.”

Burlington Electric Department did say on Saturday it found “the malware” on the laptop, but that wording now appears to have been removed from the utility’s initial statement.

As stated above allegations continue to be made against the Russians without proof. Additionally, follow up stories never get the play of the originals.

It seems obvious at this point that the CIA and Trump have entirely different positions when it comes to Russian maliciousness, which Trump downplays while the CIA works to advertise it.

But the issue is even more serious than that.

The larger issue is one we’ve been talking about for 15 years or more. The CIA is accountable to overseas banking interests in the City of London, not to American intelligence operations. The latter accountability is just a smokescreen.

The split has now become public knowledge and Trump is being directly threatened as a result.

Conclusion: These are interesting times.

North Korea Continues to Claim ‘Nuclear’ Technology

Tue, 01/03/2017 - 11:57

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un says preparations for long-range missile at final stage … A state-run Chinese newspaper accused Donald Trump of “pandering to ‘irresponsible’ attitudes” Tuesday after the president-elect alleged that Beijing had failed to rein in North Korea’s nuclear program.  –NBCN

Trump may be going at the issue of North Korea and nuclear weapons the wrong way. Maybe he should be stating that N. Korea has few if potential any weapons and that they likely don’t do what they say they will do,

We’ve explored this in numerous articles now and have determined that as far as we can tell, the Pentagons nuclear tests were “enhanced,” if not outright faked at its Lookout Mountain facility.  See here. Additionally, there are numerous questions about the only “live” nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. See here.

So, yes, the “tests” were routinely run through the Pentagon’s own enhancement facility. Whatever happened at Horishima and Nagasaki evidently included any “nuclear weapons that might have been dropped. There is certainly a case to be made that no such weapon s were used at all.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has travelled the same sort of ground with his declaration of potential nuclear possession. There is no “proof” of such possession other than tests that can be faked.

More:

Kin Jung Un said Sunday that his country was close to test-launching an intercontinental ballistic missile.  Having conducted three nuclear tests during Kim’s five years in power, he is thought to be pursuing the missile technology it would need to attack South Korea.

North Korea also has designs on reaching the U.S. military outpost of Guam and the U.S. mainland itself.   Trump tweeted Monday that the prospect of North Korea developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. “won’t happen,” but offered no other details as to why that would be the case.

Korea’s word regarding nuclear weapons has been taken at face value. Trump for instance has excoriated China for not doing more to restrain N. Korea.

The president-elect then took a swipe at China for what he sees as its part in failing to control its neighbor’s nuclear ambitions. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that China’s disapproval regarding N. Korea should be obvious to all.

Then the state-run Global Times said Trump was “pandering to ‘irresponsible’ attitudes” and stoking “the anxieties of some Americans.” who blame China.

Beijing has criticized N. Korea but is also the state’s main trading partner. Beijing is said to be concerned over what would happen if N. Korea collapsed, sending hundreds of thousands or even millions across the border.

Like Washington, Beijing treats N. Korea’s statements at face value or seems to. There is little public doubt over even the more outrageous claims such as the miniaturized, “portable” nuclear device that may be little larger than a manhole cover. Basically almost anything that N. Korea says regarding its “missile program” is apparently seen as possible despite obvious lack of proof,

Conclusion: The same difficulties affect so-called nuclear programs around the world. Just because an explosion takes place doesn’t mean it’s nuclear. Just because lots of missiles are shown off at parades doesn’t mean the missiles are functional. Outside of the Pentagon’s word (especially) for the so called missile threat what evidence do we really have.

China Expands Hegenomy as Part of Larger Perspectve

Mon, 01/02/2017 - 14:04

China says won’t allow Hong Kong to be used as subversion base …  China will not allow anyone stability, Beijing’s top official in the territory told state television.  (Reuters)

China is increasingly concerned with Hong Kong rhetoric about freedom, and has warned leaders against protests. Hong Kong operates under the uneasy policy of “one country, two systems.

In an interview, Zhang Xiaoming, said that China will not interfere with Hong Kongs autonomy, but that Hong Kong official cannot challenge the mainland´s ability to repel challenges to social and political stability. Xiaoming is head of China´s liaison office in Hong Kong

Recently, China’s parliament revisited China´s basic law regarding Hong Kong  to ensure that bar pro-independence city lawmakers are barred from taking office.

This is seen as part of a larger effort by Chinese President Xi Jinping to enforce what he considers to be legitimate Chinese hegemony. There have been reports Chinese concerns extend far beyond Hong Kong,

Taiwan’s president has been outspoken regarding China ‘threat,’ and recently predicted a turbulent 2017.

President Tsai Ing-wen said at a year-end news conference on Dec. 31, 2016 that China is a growing threat the self ruled island. “The Beijing leadership has, step by step, backed onto an old track to polarize, pressure and even threaten and intimidate Taiwan,” Tsai said.

“We hope that this is not Beijing’s adoption of a policy and want to remind it that such moves have hurt Taiwanese people’s feelings and affected stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

China recently sent an aircraft carrier and other warships near Taiwan. Additionally. Taiwan has lost alliances in Africa thanks to China and has been the victim of a massive loss of Chinese tourism.

China opposes Taiwan´s self rule and its claim for autonomy generally. Tsai has been an irritant in this regard, especially for continuing to oppose reunification talks. Tsai is not alone in his view. Most Taiwanese prefer self rule.

Tsai made a call to US president elect Donald Trump recently and spoke to him directly. This was seen as something of a coup as top US officials have not spoken to Taiwan officially for years. Not since 1979, when the US officially cut ties with the US.

“In 2017, our society is going to face some turbulence and face some uncertainties,” she was reported as saying. “It’s going to test our whole national security team, as well as the whole government’s ability to handle change. We need to face this matter calmly.”

She said that If China and Taiwan take a “rational” approach, problems could be resolved. “It is not impossible that there is room for creativity.”

But President Ji Xinpeng doesn´t seem to see it that way. In fact Xinpeng seems to see Taiwan and Hong Kong as places where he can further emphasize his commitment to ¨one China.¨ Xinpeng is known for expanding Chinese hegemony and generally seeking an expanded inviolable state.

Conclusion … Xigpeng´s program is somewhat similar to Trump´s in this regard. In fact, the two have many emphases in common. It is enough to make one suspicious that these emphases are in some way coordinated, which gives a whole new dimension to international cooperation. Time will tell.

 

 

Costa Rican Renewable Power Is Government Power

Sun, 01/01/2017 - 15:35

Costa Rica powered by renewable energy for over 250 days in 2016 … Costa Rica completes 2016 without having to burn a single fossil fuel for more than 250 days. 98.2% of Costa Rica’s electricity came from renewable sources in 2016. The state-run Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) reported that renewable energy sources accounted for 98.2 per cent of the country’s electricity and more than 250 days were powered completely by renewable sources. (Digital Journal)

Costa Rica has long been powered by a mix of fuels but is making progress toward having the government run everything.

That’s the real unsayable truth behind the governments so called progress with various different kinds of power.

Costa Rica has been powered on a mix of hydro, geothermal, winpd, solar and biomass energy sources. 74.35 percent of the country’s electricity has come from hydroelectric sources.

Geothermal plants contributed roughly 12.74 percent of electricity generation , while wind turbines provided 10.30 percent, and biomass and solar generated 0.74 percent and 0.01 percent each. 1.88 percent of its electricity still had to be produced from fossil fuels due to rainfall deficits at the beginning of the year.

ICE Executive President Carlos Obregón was quoted as saying that he intended to open an additional four wind plants next year. This will keep Costa Rica´s use of renewable steady or even on an upward curve. ICE is the government renewable energy agency.

In September 2016, Costa Rica grabbed headlines with the news the its grid had run for 1oo days purely on renewable resources.

The article does note that in the larger scheme of things, Costa Rica is nowhere near fulfilling any goals having to do with total renewability. That´s because most of the country´s transportation runs on fossil fuel.

The larger issue is why Costa Rica wants to convert all its power to renewable energy in the first place. Renewable energy as practiced now includes vast, easily hacked environments that are easily compromised.

Additionally, if Costa Rica is serious about converting transportation to renewable energy, the result will eventually be driverless cars.

The combination of driverless cars and government controlled power plants may certainly prove attractive to some.  But for many who want less government control rather than more, such effort are moving events in the wrong direction.

Conclusion There is no real reason for government to make such a major change except the obvious … additional government control. For us that´s not a pretty picture.

ICC Begins to Pale

Thu, 12/29/2016 - 11:26

Rising nationalism leaves international criminal court at risk Top lawyer warns withdrawal of countries and limiting of funding threaten future of tribunal … Six months after the international criminal court’s new Dutch palace of justice was formally opened on windswept sand dunes beside the North Sea, a tide of nationalist sentiment is threatening to undermine the project. Three African states have begun withdrawing from its jurisdiction, raising fears that a succession of others will follow suit. Russia has removed its signature from the founding statute, the Philippines and Kenya are openly contemplating departure and key member nations – including the UK – have limited its funding.

So the ICC Criminal  Court may be on the way out and that surely a positive development. Here at The Daily Bell, we are not fans of growing worldwide justice. We would rather see justice move in the other direction and become more privatexed again.

The ICC is funded in part by George Soros, and there is a reason for that. Soros gets involved when events are headed in an international direction. The creation and elaboration of global law is near and dear to the hearts of globalists everywhere.

The tribunal embodies international efforts to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but in 2017 it will face serious challenges to its credibility, insiders say.

Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and derogations from the European convention on human rights all represent a common theme of emphasizing national interests over international – usually stigmatised as “foreign” – laws.

The most immediate threat is the move by Burundi, South Africa and the Gambia, which in the last quarter of 2016 have all served notice of intention to withdraw, citing complaints that ICC prosecutions focus excessively on the African continent.

The ITC has 10 ongoing investigations since 2004 and these are almost all in Africa. This has led quite rightly to the idea that the ITC is mostly a way of focusing on Africa by Western white countries. A spokesman denied that the ICC was overly focused on Africa.

“Geographic considerations as such have no part in the exercise of this legal mandate. Most of the ICC‎ investigations in Africa were opened at the request of the African governments themselves. Two more were opened following referrals to the ICC prosecutor by the United Nations security council.”

But all in all, the ITC is pursuing fewer cases rather than more and offering less “justice” as well. Again from our point of view this is a good thing. What starts out aimed at bad guys almost invariable ends up afflicting the West instead of its stated targets whatever they are.

Additionally, while this sort of justice is supposedly supposed to be on bleeding edge of fairness, it is often far less equitable than it seems. The targets are preemptory, and often the remedies are delayed or denied. It doesn’t help that Soros is involved.

Conclusion: Justice of this sort is best delivered by those involved. The idea that some supranational body can swoop in and adequately administer a curative is simply untrue. What’s involved could eventually have more if an impact on the west than the east, and not a good one.

The Real Reason for Government Banking Solutions

Tue, 12/27/2016 - 09:36

This is a bad season for banking around the world and especially in Italy where major banks are under water.

Central banks are supposed to protect banks but who really believes that? In the modern era especially central bank protection has often involved government refinancing.

From the point of view of central banking, the health of the whole system is more important than the health of an individual component. That’s one reason why Italy’s oldest bank was just bailed out.

The bank, Monte dei Paschi di Siena, is being bailed out by the italian parliament which has put aside up to 20 billion to ose as necessary. However the parliament dearly hopes it won’t cost so much.

The bank had found up to 2.5 billion in private and institutional funds. But thut that wasn’t enough according to the European central bank that had performed a stress test some 60 banks earlier in the year BMPS finished dead last.

Nonetheless, the bank requested additional time, until january 20th but the request was refused. The bank only had until the end of the years.

Now the bank is destined to be turned over to the state, and any additional losses will be undertaken by bondholders This process may take up to three additional months according to some reports.

The lender’s position had worsened in december after a failed referendum. The result of the referendum led to the resignation of the Prime Minister and the appointment of a caretaker.

The referendum included constitutional reforms by former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi on December 4. Shortly after the referendum, the ECB tossed its negative ruling, tippling the bank into bankruptcy.

Ellen Brown, an independent analyst, writes that the real reason for current solutions is that central banks are hoping to force banks into a government oriented role. This would make sense for BMPS which was pushed into government arms by the European Central Bank.

The idea is that central banks manufacture most of the money in the world and therefore banking ought to be run for the benefit of the public. Of course such a solution is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone is satisfied with a world where central banks rather than the market itself are responsible for money creation.

The ECB and the European Commission could push banks toward government control simply by claiming that was the only feasible solution. Over time, European banks could be rescued by the central bank, outright.

The idea, according to Brown is that banks could eventually be fully nationalized for public purposes. Banks would essentially become public utilities. This runs counter to the history of banking. It a bad idea but one no doubt that is being seriously considered by the powers that be.

Japan Births Drop Hard as Tribe Decreases

Mon, 12/26/2016 - 15:20

While both global monetary and fiscal policies struggle to keep aggregate demand if not rising, then at least constant, demographics continues to wreak havoc on the best laid plans of central planners around the rapidly aging world. Just last week we reported that in 2016, the US population grew at the slowest pace since the Great Depression, largely driven by the collapse in household formation as the number of Millennials living at home with their parents has hit a 75 year high. -Zerohedge

Central banks didn’t go after Japan after the First World War but they certainly went after Japan during World Way II.

The most births post-war were in 1949, when birth soared to 2.696 million. Now they are under a million. Deaths will outstrip births, again, for the tenth year in a row.

The problem is mostly a lack of child-bearing woman in their 20’s and 30’s. The amount of births are up from a record low of 1.29 in 2005 but still well-below the near-term government goal of 1.8O

But the larger problem never mentioned is the merciless beating given to Japan by the Allies. We’ve written a number of articles about the Japanese obligatory tall tale regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever was dropped on the to cities evidently included incendiaries as well as “atom bombs¨ which may or may not have existed at the tine,

The bottom line was that the United Stated just outweighed Japan. And when it struck after Pearl Harbor it struck hard.

As time went on, the damage became more obvious and then incontrovertible. Japan was bombed on all sides, though the resoluteness of the population kept it fighting. Finally, the seeming fiction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were likely developed. The idea was to drop a weapon so deadly that Japan would have to surrender. Right on time the atom bomb made its appearance.

Nothing much good can be said of the Japanese of the day in terms their aggression toward non Japanese. But that didn’t last very long. Soon they were once again a docile and incredibly bright business minority that dominated the world stage and even now are a main dominant group despite a two-decade old depression.

What is less obvious is the hold the West has over Japan. So much of what Japan produces it exports. The nations economy is dominated by the same names that used to make munitions. But the one part of the economy that the government and its technocracy cannot control is the birthrate that is headed down and down some more.

Japan was targeted in our view during the war because of the cultural cohesiveness and single-mindedness of its people. Just like the German culture, the Japanese culture had to be significantly reorganized.

The Germans supposedly attacked the allies, and in one way this was true. The Germans in 1939 were not as a group a very nice bunch. But in another way, the allies had surely set up Hitler and his regime. The Germans and Japanese of the day, as the Internet has amply shown, attacked because they had no other choice.

Someday, probably after this disastrous era is extirpated, the real history of 20th century warfare will be written and the fuller involvement of England and America will be revealed more publicly.

Conclusion: The US and England had to reduce both the German and Japanese tribes in order to further their territorial ambitions. Full global hegemony couldn’t be achieved while these two entities were intact. And so they were attacked and destroyed.

Pages

Join Forum

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

Best of the Web