Friday, February 26, 2016

Monsanto GM Wheat In Development

MONSANTO’S GM WHEAT IN DEVELOPMENT DESPITE CONSUMER PUSH BACK
Monsanto has been working hard to create new GM wheat over the last year

Christina Sarich | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 25, 2016

Some think that with minimal market saturation, GM wheat could become a strong seller in the US, just like genetically modified corn, soy, canola oil, cottonseed, and other GM crops. Monsanto ditched the efforts to develop this particular crop 10 years ago, but has relatively recently began working to create a new strain of the crop. Why the sudden interest again in GM wheat? [1]

Monsanto has been working hard to create new GM wheat over the last year. This, after abandoning efforts in the 1990’s. At its Chesterfield Village Research Center, scientists say they can create a wheat-strain that is resistant to a trio of herbicides. Despite consumer push-back, the company will spend more than $150 million to alter just one gene in a wheat seed.

That $150 million could go a long way to teach farmers around the world how to grow food sustainably. Why does Monsanto wish to put that money toward genetically modifying nature when we know that we are destroying our farmland at unprecedented rates by using so many pesticides and herbicides (via genetically modified crops engineered to withstand copious amounts of the chemicals)?

The agriculture giant was on the verge of seeking regulatory approval for a Roundup Ready version of hard red spring wheat, typically used for bread flour in the 1990’s, but in May 2004, Monsanto halted the program citing changing market conditions. It was clear that growers — worried about consumer backlash — weren’t ready.


“There was massive opposition,” said Bill Freese, a GMO critic and science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety.

Have farmers also come to the conclusion that Monsanto’s promises about GM and Bt toxic crops producing higher yields are empty? The cost of GM seeds keep going up, so even if another strain of GM crop was developed – wheat – could farmers even profit from growing it?

As reported by STL Today:

“It didn’t take long, however, before wheat farmers grew tired of watching neighbors switch to more profitable corn and soybeans — both having seen greater yield increases fueled by stronger breeding programs and genetic modifications. By 2006, the number of U.S. acres planted with wheat had dropped to 57 million, down from 75 million a decade earlier. Soybeans, on the other hand, surged from 64 million to 75 million during the same period, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

“We came to the conclusion that we had to do something,” said Paul Penner, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers. “It’s no fun raising wheat if you are making a loss on it.”

Consumers have demanded GM labeling, and nations across the world are banning GM crops. Where does Monsanto plan on selling a GM wheat variety with so many countries passing legislation that support a GM-free agricultural environment?

You have one guess – if it starts with a U and ends with an A, you’re likely right. The USA is one of the few markets where GM crops are still viable, but even that is changing, as evidenced by Monsanto’s latest stock losses.

One of the world’s most hated companies can spend millions on developing GM wheat, but you won’t find it in my morning cereal, and many millions of people feel the same way.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Lexington All Over Again?

THE GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING! LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS NOW FACES SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUN CONFISCATION
Proposed law would ban semi-automatic weapons with magazines carrying more than 10 rounds and impose mandatory buybacks
Mike Sweeney | Daily Caller - FEBRUARY 24, 2016

“Just as we fired the first shot to start the revolution, this might be the first shot – no pun intended – to start a movement against assault weapons that would capture the state and therefore maybe explode to reach the country.”

-Robert Rotberg author and catalyst of Lexington’s gun ban proposal.

Lexington, Massachusetts. Does the name of that quaint New England town ring a bell for anyone? It should, Lexington, MA, is where American independence was kicked into high gear. On April 19, 1775, the British “red coats” marched out of Boston, heading for Concord, intending to seize caches of arms stored by local militias. They were first met on the Lexington town green and the skirmish was on, the rest as they say is history.

Fast-forward almost 240 years to the day and some of the residents of Lexington have come full circle.

They are now advocating for the government to seize legally owned firearms from the town’s residents.

The town of Lexington utilizes an annual town meeting to set policy, bylaws and approve things like the town budget. The residents do not vote directly; instead they have approximately 200 “town meeting members” who vote in representation of their constituents.

One such town meeting member, a Harvard professor named Robert Rotberg has taken it upon himself to enact, what he hopes will be “a movement against assault weapons that would capture the state and therefore maybe explode to reach the country.”

He has seized upon the recent ban enacted in Highland Park, IL, and has modeled his own ban, almost copying the language verbatim. Filing it to the town meeting warrant as Article 34.

Among other things, Article 34 includes any firearm that is semi-automatic and can accept a magazine that will hold more than 10 rounds. It also includes any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The article also has a provision in which Lexington’s licensed gun owners who own firearms included in the ban would be forced to sell, render inoperable, or have them seized and destroyed by the police department.

Lexington officials are quick to mention that the meeting is open to all, resident or not.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will Lexington be the birthplace of the progressive, gun prohibitionist revolution? Or will it be the place where Americans gather in a huge movement, opposed to yet another unconstitutional proposal? At this time it’s anyone’s guess, but we’ll know for sure by Patriots Day, April 19th, when the Battle of Lexington Green is re-enacted at dawn.

Oh, the irony.

Feds Seek "Mental Health" Testing Of Everybody

Feds Seek “Mental Health” Testing of All Children, Adults 

Next time you visit your doctor, be careful how you respond to his questions, or you may just be branded “mentally ill” and subjected to “treatment.”

New American | Alex Newman - FEBRUARY 25, 2016


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Next time you visit your doctor, be careful how you respond to his questions, or you may just be branded “mentally ill” and subjected to “treatment.” That is because a panel advising the Obama administration, in partnership with Big Psychiatry, wants to make doctors subject all American adults and children over age 12 to screening for alleged “mental health” disorders — particularly depression, at least to start with. Then, anyone found to harbor any alleged mental disorder, including children as young as eight, should undergo “therapy,” often including powerful psychotropic medications that experts say have dubious value but often come with well-documented and highly dangerous side effects.

Your ObamaCare plan will be forced to pay for it, whether you want it or not, thanks to the federal government's commandeering of the health-insurance industry under the so-called Affordable Care Act. And eventually, younger and younger children will be in Big Brother's crosshairs for mental and behavioral health “services,” whether parents want it or not. School teachers, social workers, and more are all already being enlisted in the federal government's search for supposed “mental and behavioral health” issues — a list that is perpetually expanding as psychiatrists invent new “illnesses.” The outcry against the federal government's obsession with your mind and the minds of America's children, though, is growing louder, as critics call the agenda “depressing” and worry whether it is another scheme to disarm more Americans.

The controversial “recommendations” include screening all Americans between the ages of 12 and 18 for depression. A separate but related recommendation seeks to have all U.S. adults checked for “mental illness,” too. And consider that the list of “illnesses” is subjective (homosexuality was a mental disorder a few decades ago) and is constantly expanding as psychiatrists vote to create new ones, literally, as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — the “Bible” of psychiatry that has been widely criticized, even by leading psychiatrists.


The latest demands come from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF. The influential outfit, appointed by the Obama administration's increasingly radical Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recommends various unconstitutional federal health policies for Big Brother to decree into pseudo-law via regulation.

Its latest recommendations for children and adolescents 12 and older were published earlier this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “The USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years,” the HHS task force said in the summary of its position. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.” Why the federal government believes it has any business coming between patients and doctors — or where it believes the constitutional authority for such meddling is found — was not immediately clear.

The outfit also left the door open for recommending such “screening” for children under 12, too. “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children aged 11 years and younger,” the Obama HHS panel wrote. The recommendations also call for using controversial medications such as Prozac to drug children between 12 and 17, while advocating powerful psychotropic substances such as Lexapro for children as young as eight.

Already, about one in 10 American school-aged boys has been labeled and drugged under the guise of “Attention Deficit Disorder” (ADD) and “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” (ADHD). However, even the late Dr. Leon Eisenberg, often described as the “father” or “inventor” of the diagnosis, said before his death in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel that the alleged disease was “a prime example of a fabricated disorder.” With the list of “disorders” expanding rapidly, and with that list labeling more and more normal behaviors as symptoms of alleged illness, critics have warned that the trend is deeply troubling.

When it comes to adults, the advisory panel, which purports to be independent, wants to cast an even broader net. “The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women,” said the outfit, which adds that its views should not be construed as the official position of the “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality” or Obama's HHS. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”

In its “rationale” for recommending that all U.S. adults be screened for depression, the panel claims that the “illness” is “common in patients seeking care in the primary care setting.” It also cites “adequate evidence” allegedly showing some “improvements” if its advice is followed.

Then, unsurprisingly, the outfit downplays the very serious risks documented by The New American magazine and many other sources — including government and Big Pharma itself. For instance, the panel admits that antidepressants are “associated” with harms, including an increase in suicidal behavior, an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, fetal harm, and more. But despite that, the task force “concludes with at least moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit” to screening all American adults. And by all, the task force means all: “The USPSTF recommends screening in all adults regardless of risk factors,” it said.

Big Pharma and Big Government were no doubt pleased with the conclusion. But not everyone was. Among those expressing concerns was Dr. Ron Paul, the liberty-minded former congressman from Texas and GOP presidential contender, who called the proposed mandatory screenings a “depressing thought” in his weekly column. “Basic economics, as well as the Obamacare disaster, should have shown this task force that government health insurance mandates harm Americans,” wrote Paul, a medical doctor. He warned that, among other problems, the scheme would raise insurance costs. Even more troubling is that it would likely result in new federal databases containing the results of the screenings, which would be used to deny even more Americans their right to keep and bear arms.

“Today, some mental health professionals think that those who believe in limited government, free-market economics, or traditional values suffer from mental disorders,” Paul explained, echoing growing concerns among watchdogs monitoring the psychiatric industry. “If mandatory depression screening becomes a reality, it is likely this mental health screening will be expanded to cover screening for other mental illnesses. This could result in anyone with an unpopular political belief or lifestyle choice being labeled as 'mentally ill.'”

Other commentators also directly suggested that the new demands for more “mental health” screening may be related to Obama's agenda to infringe on gun rights. “With executive actions aimed at getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, the timing of this report's release is rather curious,” wrote Trey Sanchez with Truth Revolt, a conservative-leaning outlet. “It seems reasonable to assume that mass screenings will produce more diagnoses of depression, even for those patients who showed up a little blue that day. But maybe that's the point: the more people there are that can be labeled 'mentally ill' (indeed a disservice to those suffering from actual mental illnesses), the less gun permits approved.”

It is hardly the first time in recent memory that Obama's HHS has demanded extreme and anti-constitutional intrusions under the guise of “health.” Indeed, the HHS has become increasingly bold in its demands for totalitarianism. Last year, for example, it unveiled a push to target American adults with vaccine mandates. In collaboration with Big Business and special interests, bureaucrats outlined the “National Adult Immunization Plan” (NAIP) to track Americans' vaccination records, wage a massive propaganda campaign to “encourage” more inoculations, and foist more controversial vaccines on adults against their will. Critics noted that the agenda includes eventually imposing vaccines at gunpoint.

More recently, HHS, in partnership with the increasingly radical U.S. Department of Education, unveiled a draft policy statement in which families are referred to as Big Brother's “equal partners” in child rearing. As if that was not enough, the document called for expanding “home visitation” programs. “Home visits by a nurse, social worker, or early childhood educator during pregnancy and in the first years of life can make a tremendous difference in the lives of many children and their families,” argued Obama's HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell last year in announcing more “grants” to send government workers to family homes.

The “equal partners” scheme also comes with important “mental health” implications, as the policy statement makes clear. “Ensure constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health,” the document demands. “Ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.” In the policy statement's “recommendations” for states — much of which will be imposed through federal bribes — state governments are told to “expand early childhood mental health consultation efforts.”

Of course, there is no constitutional authority for federally mandated “mental health” exams or any other meddling in healthcare or family life. Nor is there authority for a Department of “Health and Human Services” to exist. As HHS and other unconstitutional agencies continue to expand, so does the threat they pose to the liberties, well-being, and prosperity of the American people. It is time for the public to demand that Congress defund and shut down all unconstitutional agencies before the lawlessness and totalitarianism become even more extreme.

Kansas City Fed Survey Crashes To 7 Year Lows

BUSINESS IS “WORST SINCE THE 80S RECESSION” – KANSAS CITY FED SURVEY CRASHES TO 7-YEAR LOWS

Employment-related indicators are collapsing
Zero Hedge - FEBRUARY 25, 2016

The Kansas City Fed Composite Index has not been positive for 13 months and February’s below expectations print of -12 is the worst since April 2009.

The Fed unleashed QE3 the last time KC Fed dipped… and this time is dramatically worse…



Both MoM and YoY, every single component of the KC Fed survey is down, and down hard with employment-related indicators collapsing.



Source: KC Fed

Finally we let the respondents speak for themselves…


“Business is off at levels not seen since the recession of the early 1980’s.”

“We are starting off to a very slow year. Shipments are down 22% compared to last year.Margins are decreasing. We don’t know how our competitors keep lowering prices, as this is not good for the long haul.”

But still we hear day after day that there is no recession in sight?

By way of comparison to the current ‘recovery’, “number of employees” has now fallen for 14 months… it only fell 13 in 2008/9

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Ron Paul Will Not Support Trump

Ron Paul: I wouldn't support Trump as GOP nominee
Matthew J. Belvedere | CNBC.com

Three-time candidate for president Ron Paul said Wednesday he does not like any of the remaining GOP candidates in the 2016 race, and would not support Donald Trump if he were to win the Republican nomination.


Trump has been able to tap into the anger and fear of a large "minority" of voters, Paul told CNBC's "Squawk Box." He said the billionaire businessman acts like he has all the answers but "zero" realistic solutions to the problems facing the nation.

"I hear the ability of politicians to capitalize on the worries," the libertarian Republican continued. "They're able to use the blame game." Paul served 12 terms as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

Read MoreHouse Speaker Ryan: Trump tapping into voter anger

Trump was the projected winner of Tuesday's Nevada caucuses by a wide-margin, his third-straight victory with the Super Tuesday contests less than a week away. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was seen edging out Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas for second place in Nevada.

Paul admitted that Trump has the momentum in the early contests, but said there's a long road of primaries and caucuses before the GOP's nominating convention in July.

The race for the White House has become "Trump-ism versus Sander-ism," said Paul, referring to Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. He said both approaches are "not a whole lot different" in their wrongheadedness.

Sanders wants to make the government bigger and Trump wants to be the government, said Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012. He also ran in a failed bid for the White House in 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

Paul's son — Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who had sought to take up his father's mantle — dropped his presidential bid earlier this month after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, the first-in-the-nation nominating contest.


Cruz — who beat Trump in Iowa and then racked up three third-places finishes in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada — is making the case that he's the most electable anti-establishment candidate.

In the establishment lane with Rubio, who was third in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, and second in both South Carolina and Nevada, is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Kasich got a boost from grabbing the No. 2 spot in New Hampshire after getting off to a slow start in Iowa.

"We're going to do very well on Super Tuesday," said Tom Ridge, the national co-chairman of Kasich campaign. "We are going to do quite well in the weeks ahead."

Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania and ex-director of the Homeland Security Department, played down Kasich's fifth-place finishes in South Carolina, and Nevada.

"We're going to win Ohio [on March 15]," Ridge said, despite the latest poll showing Kasich slightly behind in his home state to Trump. "And [in] some of those 'purple states' we're going to see the value of having a proven leader with a consistent conservative record."


Ridge insisted that Kasich has the best chance to beat Trump and capture the GOP nomination, Ridge said. He touted the candidate's service to Ohio, currently as a second-term governor and as a longtime U.S. congressman who was chairman of the Budget Committee from 1995 to 2001.

"When people start focusing, I think they're going to pay a lot more attention to records rather than rhetoric," said Ridge, who had been a supporter of Jeb Bush before the former Florida governor dropped out of the race.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Central Banks Should Stop Paying Interest On Reserves

CENTRAL BANKS SHOULD STOP PAYING INTEREST ON RESERVES

What is to be done to escape the curse?
Brendan Brown | Mises.org - FEBRUARY 23, 2016

In 2008, the Federal Reserve began paying interest on reserve balances held on deposit at the Fed.

It took more than seven decades from the US leaving the gold standard — in 1933 — for the fiat regime to do this and thus revoke a cardinal element of the old gold-based monetary system: the non-payment of any interest on base money.

The academic catalyst to this change came from Milton Friedman’s essay“The Optimum Quantity of Money” where he argued that the opportunity cost of paper money (any foregoing of interest compared to on alternative money-like instruments such as savings deposits) should be equal to its virtually-zero marginal cost of production. Opportunity cost could indeed be brought down to zero if base money (bank reserves, currency) in large part paid interest at the market rate. Under the gold standard, the opportunity cost of holding base money largely in metallic form (gold coin) was indeed typically significant. All forms of base money paid no interest. And the stream of interest income foregone in terms of present value was equal in principle to the marginal cost of gold production (this was equal to the gold price).

Interest on Reserves are Important to Controlling Markets and Imposing Negative Rates

Friedman, however, did not identify the catch-22 of his proposal. If the officials of the fiat money regime indeed take steps to close the gap between the marginal production cost and opportunity cost of base money, with both at zero, then there can be no market mechanism free of official intervention and manipulation for determining interest rates.

That is what we are now finding out in the few years since central banks in the US, Europe, and Japan started paying interest on reserves. (The ECB was authorized to do this since its launch in 1999, while the Fed and BoJ began following the 2008 financial crisis.) Central banks can now bind the invisible hand operating in the interest rate market to an extent almost unprecedented in peacetime. In some cases, central banks have even deployed a negative interest rate “tool” which would have been impossible under the prior status quo where base money paid no interest.
How We Got Here

The signing into law of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act in 2006 authorized the Federal Reserve to begin paying interest on reserves held by depository institutions beginning October 1, 2011. On the insistence of then Fed Chief Bernanke, that date was brought forward to October 1, 2008 by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. He was in the process of dispensing huge loans to troubled financial institutions but wanted nonetheless to keep interest rates at a positive level (one purpose here was to protect the money market fund industry).

Accordingly, the Federal Reserve Board amended its regulation D so that the interest rate paid on required reserves and on excess reserves would be at levels tied (according to distinct formulas at the start) to market rates. An official communiqué explained that the new procedure would eliminate the opportunity cost of holding required reserves (and thereby “deregulate”) and help to establish a lower limit for the Federal Funds rate, becoming thereby a useful tool of monetary policy.

This was useful indeed from the viewpoint of rate manipulators: by setting the rate on excess reserves the Fed could now determine the path of short-term interest rates and strongly influence longer term rates regardless of how the supply of monetary base was growing relative to trend demand. By contrast, under the gold standard and the subsequent first seven decades of the fiat money regime, interest rates in the money market were determined by forces which brought demand for base money into balance with the path of supply as set by gold mining conditions or by central bank policy decision respectively. A rise in rates meant that the public and the banks would economize on their direct or indirect holdings of base money and conversely.
Back Before the Fed Paid Interest on Reserves

Yes, under the fiat money system the central bank could effectively peg a short-term rate and supply whatever amount of base money was needed to underwrite that — but the consequential growth of supply in base money was a variable which got wide attention and remained an ostensible policy concern. Right up until the Greenspan era, the FOMC implemented policy decisions by directing the New York Fed money desk to increase or reduce the pace of reserve growth and changes in the Fed funds rate occurred ostensibly to accomplish that purpose. This old method of determining money market interest rates under a fiat regime — in which banks’ need for reserves was minute given deposit insurance, a generous lender of last resort, and too-big-to-fail — depended on the banking industry enduring what was essentially a tax on its deposit business, which was then magnified by fairly high legal reserve requirements. Thus, it is not surprising that the original impetus to paying interest on reserves, whether in the US or Europe, came from the banking lobby. There was no such burden under the gold standard even though the yellow metal earned no interest. Banks in honoring their pledge to deposit clients that their funds were convertible into gold had to visibly hold large amounts of the metal in their vaults or at hand in a reserve center. Actual and potential demand for monetary base by the public is more limited under a fiat money regime than under the gold standard as bank notes are hardly such a distinct asset as gold coin from other financial instruments.
More Problems with Friedmanite “Solutions”

Friedman, when he advocated eliminating the opportunity cost of base money under a fiat regime, hypothesized that this could occur under a long-run declining trend of prices rather than by the payment of interest. The real rate of return on base money could then be in line with the equilibrium real interest rate. This proposal for perpetually declining prices would also have been problematic, though. The interest rate would fluctuate, and in boom times be well above the rate of price decline. In any case, the rate of price decline would surely vary (sometimes into positive territory) in a well-functioning economy even when the long-run trend was constant (downward). The equilibrium real interest rate would be below the rate of price decline sometimes (for example, during business downturns), meaning that market rates even at zero would be too high. That situation did not occur often under the gold standard where prices were expected to be on a flat trend from a very long-run perspective and move pro-cyclically (falling to a low-point in the recession from which they were expected to rise in the subsequent business expansion, meaning that real interest rates would then be negative).
What Can Be Done?

So what is to be done to escape the curse? A starting point in the US would be for Congress to ban the payment of interest on bank reserves. And the US should use its financial power with respect to the IMF to argue that Japan and Europe act similarly within a spirit of G-7 coordination such as to combat monetary instability. We have seen in recent years how rate manipulation and negative rates are made possible by the payment of interest on reserves, and are potent weapons of currency warfare. Yes, the ban in the immediate would force the Federal Reserve to slim down its balance sheet so that supply and demand for base money would balance at a low positive level of interest rates. The Fed might have to swap its holdings of long-maturity debt for T-bills at the Treasury window so as to avoid any dislocation of the long-term interest rate market in consequence. That, not the Yellen-Fischer “rate lift off day and beyond,” is the road back to monetary normalcy.

Monday, February 22, 2016

The Economics Of "Free Stuff"

THE ECONOMICS OF “FREE STUFF”

Proponents of free stuff should look to capitalism, not redistributionism
Jonathan Newman | Mises.org - FEBRUARY 22, 2016


The perennial promises of free stuff from political candidates are front and center again now that we are ensnared in another US election cycle.

The knee-jerk response from some economists and libertarians is “TANSTAAFL!” And of course it’s true that There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, because somebody must bear the costs of the supposedly “free” stuff. Nothing is free because every action has an opportunity cost.

Especially when the government is involved in doling out the gifts, all it means is that it was bought with money taken from others. Or, sometimes, the money is taken from the person receiving the gift, who thinkshe’s gotten something for nothing. (This is a sleight-of-hand political trick that has fooled many for centuries.)


But what if we interpret “free” in a more colloquial sense? Is it still preferable for the government to give away free stuff? Do unhampered markets provide for free stuff?
Two Definitions of “Free”

Today’s promises include free college, free healthcare, free paid time off of work, and all sorts of goodies. Although the above conclusion (no such thing as “free”) applies to all of these, I want to consider a different, more liberal definition of “free”: gifted.

For example, if Bernie gives Jonathan an apple that Bernie either grew in his orchard or bought at the store and Bernie expects nothing in return, the apple is a free gift from Bernie to Jonathan. The production, purchase, and loss of the apple is costly, but Jonathan bears none of these costs. Jonathan would technically have to expend some time and effort to hold and consume the apple, and he would lose an apple’s worth of carrying capacity on his person, but ignoring these and other technicalities, we cancasually say that the apple is a free gift from Jonathan’s perspective.
a
So now consider this definition for the above examples: freely giftedcollege, freely gifted healthcare, freely giftedtime off, etc. We realize that these already exist, and would exist absent government provision.

There are innumerable scholarships offered by individuals, organizations, and colleges who want certain students to attend college. Organizations like St. Jude’s, Doctors Without Borders, and Operation Smile offer freely given medical services to patients. And many businesses already allow their employees vacation days, medical leave, and family leave without them skipping paychecks, although there is an important caveat here that this would be priced into their regular salary or wage unless the employing entrepreneurs want to give from their own means.

This is all not to mention the freebies, BOGO coupons, “freemium” apps, and other marketing strategies retail stores employ.
Why Do People Give Gifts?

First, we must have more than we want to keep for ourselves.

Widespread abundance like this is only possible with relatively unhampered markets and roundabout production in place, where entrepreneurs are correctly guessing consumer demands and a large capital structure made possible by saving yields plenty of consumer goods. We have to create wealth before we can exchange it, consume it, or give it away.

But once we have such an abundance of means, the reasons for giving are countless and outside the scope of economics. An altruist might give out of generosity, but even a greedy businessman could give because of increased storage costs for all of their inventory, or as a plan to attract customers.

It should be noted that self-interest motivates both the altruist and the greedy businessman. The altruist’s actions are self-interested because she is satisfying one of her own ends by relinquishing ownership of the donated means to somebody else.
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Giving

When the giver gives voluntarily and the receiver accepts the gift, we can say it represents a mutually beneficial arrangement. The same cannot be said for forced redistribution.

When Bernie gives Jonathan the apple, Bernie is satisfying the highest ranked end he has for that apple. If, however, Bernie stole the apple from somebody else before giving it to Jonathan, then we can say with certainty that the exchange of the apple is not mutually beneficial.

The same goes for college scholarships and medical care. If the government takes the means to give somebody free college, then it does not represent a mutually beneficial arrangement, or else the individual would have voluntarily donated the money for the student to go to school.

Unlike private charities and scholarship funds, the government has no reason to dispense the gifts prudently or to minimize their own cut to maintain a donor base that is confident their donations are used efficiently and for the intended cause.

Forced redistribution also tends to spur bitterness and conflict, as opposed to gratitude and goodwill.
Proponents of Free Stuff Should Look to Capitalism, not Redistributionism

The conclusion we can draw here is that we get just the right amount of “free” stuff through the voluntary interactions of individuals in unhampered markets. And, not only that, but as capitalistic economies inevitably grow and the people become increasingly wealthy, charitable giving can increase as well. As the supply of goods that satisfy our ends gets larger, those marginal goods are more likely to be valued in terms of giving them away rather than keeping them ourselves.

Therefore, those that desire more free stuff should try to encourage morevoluntary giving (maybe even leading by example), not forced redistribution. They should also be the loudest proponents of unhampered markets as any voluntary giving must come from wealth that has already been created and in such abundance as to allow for greater giving.

Putin Threatens Turkey With Tactical Nukes

REPORT: PUTIN THREATENS TURKEY WITH TACTICAL NUKES

Moscow warns Ankara that it will fiercely resist an invasion of Syria
Paul Joseph Watson - FEBRUARY 22, 2016

Award-winning Iran-Contra journalist Robert Parry has been told by a source close to Vladimir Putin that Russia has threatened Turkey with the use of tactical nuclear weapons if it launches a joint invasion of Syria with Saudi Arabia.

Writing for Consortium News, Parry warns that the risk of the United States and its allies escalating the conflict in Syria to rescue rebels who are now on the verge of defeat could spark “World War III”.


“If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria,” writes Parry.

“A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.”

Parry’s background suggests the information should be treated seriously. He covered the Iran-Contra scandal for the Associated Press and Newsweek and was later given a George Polk award for his work on intelligence matters.

According to Parry, although President Obama has “sought to calm Erdogan down and made clear that the U.S. military would not join the invasion,” he has been “unwilling to flatly prohibit such an intervention”.

Moscow’s alleged threat to repel a Turkish invasion of Syria with nuclear weapons follows comments by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in which he warned of a new world war if the United States and its allies send ground troops into Syria.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have both signaled they are considering a ground invasion of Syria in order to aid refugees and so-called “moderate rebels” fighting against the Assad regime.

Last week, Turkish officials called for a “safe zone” to be established within Syria to allow refugees to flee Russia’s advance, although the United States argued that such a corridor could not be set up without a no fly zone.

Saudi Arabia is currently conducting the biggest wargames the region has seen for a quarter of a century. Northern Thunder involves 150,000 troops from 20 countries and is viewed by some as a precursor to a possible invasion of Syria.

Earlier this month, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told CNN that President Bashar al-Assad will have to be removed “by force” if the political process fails.

Despite official denials that the kingdom possesses nuclear weapons, Saudi political analyst told RT’s Arabic network last week that the Saudis have indeed obtained the bomb and that tests will be conducted soon.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Do You Support Terrorism?

BACKING INFOWARS MAY SOON BE CONSIDERED “MATERIAL SUPPORT” OF TERRORISM

DOJ looking to tweak PATRIOT Act and prosecute anti-government "extremists"
Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 21, 2016

In October with little fanfare the Justice Department created a new position to emphasize the threat the government says it faces from so-called domestic extremists.

“Homegrown violent extremists can be motivated by any viewpoint on the full spectrum of hate—anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs,” John Carlin, in charge of DOJ’s national security division, told a seminar on terrorism at George Washington University. The event was hosted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Carlin said government and law enforcement now consider individuals and groups opposed to the authority of the state to be the top terrorism concern, a threat he said overshadows Muslim extremism.

Carlin’s remark designating “anarchy” as “despicable” reveals that the government considers any opposition to the state to be terrorism. The word anarchy is derived from ancient Greek word anarchia, meaning without a ruler or centralized authority.


“I can say, based on our briefings, that as I said in my opening remarks, we very much think that the domestic terrorism threat is a real and present threat that demands to be addressed in new, creative ways,” Carlin said, adding that the “Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups in this space are very important.”

In 2010 Infowars noted the Department of Homeland Security considers the SPLC to be a de facto division of the federal government. Stewart Rhodesof the patriot group the Oath Keepers uncovered a document that lists Richard Cohen as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Cohen is the president and CEO of the SPLC.

“What does the working group do? Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources—police, social services, media, NGO’s, you name it—to fight ‘extremism.’ So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists. Now it is in your face and the mask is off,” Rhodes explained.

In April 2009 a document produced by the Department of Homeland Security, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” characterized patriot political groups that reject “federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or [reject] government authority entirely” as domestic terrorists.
Material Support for Terrorism to be Used Against Patriots

In early February Reuters reported Justice Department officials will ask Congress for a statute “to toughen the fight against anti-government extremists.” A similar law is currently used to prosecute individuals accused of providing “material support” for Muslim terrorist groups currently on the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations.

The PATRIOT Act codifies material support as distributing literature, political advocacy and donating money to groups and individuals the government considers terrorists. An individual does not need to be involved in violence to be prosecuted. Moreover, the government does not need to “show that any specific act of terrorism has taken place, or is being planned, or even that a defendant intended to further terrorism,” according to an ACLU white paper.

“A different standard is being applied to Muslims than to other people,” a former counterterrorism expert at the Department of Homeland Security now working as a law enforcement consultant told Reuters.

Carlin said his team at the DOJ is taking a “thoughtful look at the nature and scope of the domestic terrorism threat” and helping to analyze “potential legal improvements and enhancements to better combat those threats.”

Reuters specifically mentions as anti-government extremism the non-violent civil disobedience of the group led by Ammon Bundy at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last month.

Last week Cliven Bundy and four others were indicted by a federal grand jury in Nevada on charges related to the 2014 “standoff”at the Bundy ranch. The charges include: conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, weapon use and possession, assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction, extortion to interfere with commerce, and interstate travel in aid of extortion.

Nevada Democrat Senator and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called the Bundy family patriarch a “domestic terrorist.”

The government considers the act of civil disobedience in Nevada to be a violent act. “This indictment sends a resounding message to those who wish to participate in violent acts that our resolve to pursue them and enforce the law remains unwavering,” Nevada FBI Special Agent in ChargeLaura Bucheit said.

If the government gets its wish and is permitted to use the material support statute against non-violent constitutionalists, members patriot groups and those rejecting the authority of the state over the individual, supporters of Alex Jones and Infowars—characterized by the SPLC as extremist—may eventually be prosecuted as terrorists.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Saudis Claim To Have Nuclear Bomb

SAUDIS CLAIM TO HAVE NUCLEAR BOMB

Pakistan has agreed to deliver nuclear weapons to Riyadh
Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 20, 2016


Earlier this week a Saudi political analyst told RT’s Arab network the kingdom has a nuclear weapon.


Dahham Al-‘Anzi made the claim while saying Saudi Arabia is engaged in an effort to “minimize the Iranian threat in the Levant and Syria.”

Although Saudi Arabia has officially denied it has a nuclear weapons program and has publicly stated it opposes nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it has funded a military nuclear program and received scientific assistance from the United States and Pakistan.

Despite this cooperation, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Saudis in January there would be “all kinds of NPT consequences” if Riyadh received a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.

The Saudis began financing Pakistan’s atomic weapons project in 1974. “Our achievements are yours,” the Pakistani president, General Zia-ul-Haq, told the Saudis in the 1980s.

In the late 1980s the Saudis secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China. The CSS-2, also known as the Dong Feng, is based on the Russian 9K720 Iskander missile. The intercontinental ballistic missile is designed to carry a 3 megaton nuclear warhead to a distance up to 12,000 kilometers.

“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan,” said Gary Samore, Obama’s former counter-proliferation adviser.

In 2013 a senior NATO spokesman told the BBC nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are ready to be delivered. In 2009 King Abdullah warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross Saudi Arabia “will get nuclear weapons” if Iran pursued a nuclear weapons program.

Following the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, the Saudis reasserted their desire to obtain a nuclear weapon.

“I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the bomb if Iran did. It’s just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn’t want one, but when India got it, so did they,”said Jamal Khashoggi, the head of a Saudi news channel owned by the Saudi royal family.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Feds Roll Out "See Something, Say Something" For The Internet

FEDS ROLL OUT “SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING” FOR THE INTERNET
Encourage citizens to report terrorist websites and social media messages
Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 18, 2016


The Department of Homeland Security wants $1 million of taxpayer money to initiate a citizen surveillance program online.

The PSA “will look to raise public and private sector awareness of cybersecurity and to emphasize the importance of cyber awareness and information safekeeping,” an FY 2017 congressional budget documentproduced by the Department of Homeland Security explains.

The new initiative will undoubtedly fail as stupendously as its real world counterpart introduced following the September 11, 2001 attacks. In New York, the program produced largely false leads and other wasteful distractions of time and millions of dollars.

Reports of harmless goings-on clogged the law-enforcement system and kept officials from investigating serious threats, New York Magazine reported in 2012.


“There have been no people stopped from doing an act of terror, there have been no people charged with terror through the informants that have come forward,” Harvey Molotch, an NYU sociologist, told the magazine.

A report produced by the ACLU in 2013 points out that a “see something, say something” program in California “resulted in plenty of seeing and saying, but has failed to turn up much in the way of usable counter-terrorism intelligence,” writes Tim Cushing for Techdirt. The program also produced “a strong culture of paranoia” within government.

Although millions of dollars of tax money poured into the Department of Homeland Security to support the program and it was adopted by national sports leagues, transit systems, and big-box retailers, most Americans remain unaware of it. 55% never heard of it, according to a Gallup pollconducted in December, 2013.

Despite the inefficacy of the New York program, the government produced a counterterrorism app following the Paris attacks. Beau Duffy, a spokesperson for the New York State Police Public Information Office, said the app was designed to report suspicious activity, including “an unattended backpack or briefcase in a public place, a vehicle that’s parked in an unusual location, or someone who is showing an unusual interest in a building or other facility.”

A similar app was released by Ohio Homeland Security officials in 2014. It was debuted on the anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing.
Government Focuses On Internet Speech

Over the last few months the government has increased its rhetoric and propaganda about the supposed threat of internet-based terrorism. Earlier this month the United Nations took up the issue.

“The Islamic State’s exploitation of the Internet and social media continues to bedevil U.S. policymakers, legislators, and tech companies,” explains theCouncil on Foreign Relations.

Attention has focused on encryption technologies described as the “internet going dark” by government. “Statements from law enforcement officials that encryption poses a threat to their efforts against terrorism and crime, versus support for encryption from civil society and companies,” the CFR notes.

The Department of Homeland Security effort to identify and purge from the internet material government considers terroristic will eventually resemble an effort initiated by Britain.

Last February UK Home Secretary Theresa May declared members of the Five Eyes surveillance alliance — the NSA, Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Canada’s Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) — should force internet service providers to eradicate what government considers “extremist messages” from the web.

May’s proposal to stop “the message of hate from spreading” included building “capabilities at the European Internet Referrals Unit at Europol to secure the removal of terrorist propaganda from the internet.”

For now the DHS internet “see something, say something” initiative is limited to reporting what citizens consider terrorist websites and messages on social media.

The program will eventually expand and become part of a larger international government effort to sanitize the internet.

For the United States terrorist messages are not limited to the ravings of fundamentalist Muslims. According to numerous government reports, dangerous ideas and speech are also transmitted by domestic groups, including constitutionalists, antiwar activists and “sovereign citizens,” or those who do not recognize the authority of a centralized federal government.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Apple Vs. The FBI...Who Do You Think Will Win?

APPLE VOWS TO DEFEND ITS CUSTOMERS AS THE FBI LAUNCHES A WAR ON PRIVACY AND SECURITY

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, threw down the gauntlet yesterday in a message to his customers

Michael Krieger Liberty Blitzkrieg - FEBRUARY 18, 2016

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.


The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

– From Apple CEO Tim Cook’s letter: A Message to Our Customers

I’ve spend most of the morning reading as much as possible about the explosive battle between the FBI and Apple over consumer rights to digital privacy and security. I came away with a refined sense of just how monumental this case is, as well as a tremendous amount of respect for Apple CEO Tim Cook for his public stance against the feds.

Before I get into the issue at hand, some background is necessary. The feds, and the FBI in particular, have been very vocal for a long time now about the desire to destroy strong encryption, i.e., the ability of citizens to communicate privately. A year ago, I wrote the following in the post, By Demanding Backdoors to Encryption, U.S. Government is Undermining Global Freedom and Security:


One of the biggest debates happening at the intersection of technology and privacy at the moment revolves around the U.S. government’s fear that the American peasantry may gain access to strong encryption in order to protect their private communications. Naturally, this isn’t something Big Brother wants to see, and the “solution” proposed by the status quo revolves around forcing technology companies to provide a way for the state to have access to all secure communications when they deem it necessary.

Many technology experts have come out strongly against this plan. Leaving aside the potential civil liberties implications of giving the lawless maniacs in political control such power, there’s the notion that if you create access for one group of entitled people, you weaken overall security. Not to mention the fact that if the U.S. claims the right to such privileged access, all other countries will demand the same in return, thus undermining global privacy rights and technology safeguards.

We are already seeing this play out in embarrassing fashion. Once again highlighting American hypocrisy and shortsightedness, as well as demonstrating that the U.S. government does’t actually stand for anything, other than the notion that “might means right.” Sad.

Here are a few other previously published articles on the topic:

The War on Encryption and Bitcoin – Nothing to Do with Terrorism, Everything to Do with State Control

Government is Lying – New Study Shows No Increase in Use of Encryption by Jihadists Since Snowden Revelations

War on Encryption: Highlighting Two Crucial Articles on the Latest NSA Revelations

With that out of the way, let’s turn our attention to the issue at hand. Specifically, how Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, threw down the gauntlet yesterday in a message to his customers. Here are a few critical excerpts:


The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Indeed, as Edward Snowden noted on Twitter:



Tim Cook deserves tremendous credit for the courage to come out and so aggressively and publicly denounce what the FBI is trying to do. If he hadn’t decided to publicly challenge the court order and write a detailed treatise on precisely why, the American citizenry would be left completely in the dark. This would be an unethical and unacceptable position.

Second, this case could very well be headed up to higher courts. The greatest risk in these sorts of cases revolves around judicial ignorance when it comes to technology issues. The government knows all too well that most judges are clueless when it comes to tech, and that all they have to do is scaremonger with the word “terrorism” and judges will almost always default to the government position. Cook’s very public stance will at least shine some light on the issue and hopefully fuel robust, intelligent public debate which could inform judges ahead of being presented with technology related cases they don’t really understand.

I’d now like to share additional tidbits I discovered from various articles around the web on the topic. First, from Ars Technica:


“[The Department of Justice] went with the nuclear option,” Chris Soghoian, a technologist with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Ars.

Similarly, Ahmed Ghappour, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, concurred.

“Here you have the government using a catch-all statute from the 18th century to compel a technology company to ‘assist’ law enforcement by designing custom software to backdoor an encrypted device,” he told Ars. “The ramifications of such a precedent could be tremendous. If the government can compel Apple to provide custom software, why can’t they compel Facebook to customize analytics that predicts the criminality of their user base?”

Now here’s what a member of Congress who actually understands technology had to say on the matter. From the Daily Dot:


A federal judge’s order directing Apple to help the FBI break into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone effectively “forces private-sector companies like Apple to be used as an arm of law enforcement,” one of the most prominent pro-encryption voices in Congress said Tuesday night.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer-science graduate, wondered where the use of the All Writs Act—on which the magistrate judge based her ruling—might lead.

Critics of the order argue that, based on its wording, all software companies could be forced to insert potentially harmful code into their products, because, as the government argued, “writing software code is not an unreasonable burden for a company that writes software code as part of its regular business.”

“Can courts compel Facebook to provide analytics of who might be a criminal?” Lieu said in an email to the Daily Dot. “Or Google to give a list of names of people who searched for the term ISIS? At what point does this stop?”

Recall, I’ve highlighted Rep. Lieu’s efforts in the past. See the post: This is What Happens When a Member of Congress Holds a Computer Science Degree (*Hint: Logic).

Moving along, the Obama administration is now coming out and claiming that it’s not looking for a backdoor. Reuters reports:


Feb 17 The court ruling ordering Apple Inc. to help unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino attackers represents just one case, the White House said on Wednesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Department of Justice is asking the tech giant for access to a single device.

In a briefing with reporters, White House spokesman Josh Earnest deferred to the Justice Department but said it’s important to recognize that the government is not asking Apple to redesign its product or “create a new backdoor to its products.”

But let’s revisit Tim Cook’s exact words. He wrote:


They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Given the fact the Obama administration is essentially calling Tim Cook a liar, I decided to initiate a Twitter poll (final results are not yet in, but it stands at 94% voting Tim Cook).



Please share this post. It is monumentally important that as much of the public as possible (including judges) knows exactly what’s at stake here. Do we really want to sacrifice overall privacy and security in order to get information from one person’s phone?

Or what about the following question posed by cryptography professor Matthew Green:



These are enormous questions with tremendous implications. I just hope we as a society choose wisely.

Watch Out Ben!!

WHY THE KEYNESIAN MARKET WRECKERS ARE NOW COMING FOR YOUR BEN FRANKLINS

The crime is that we are ruled by a self-perpetuating elite of monetary cranks
David Stockman | Zero Hedge - FEBRUARY 18, 2016


Larry Summers is a pretentious Keynesian fool, but I refer to him as the Great Thinker’s Vicar on Earth for a reason. To wit, every time the latest experiment in Keynesian intervention fails – as 84 months of ZIRP and massive QE clearly have – he can be counted on to trot out a new angle on why still another interventionist experiment or state sponsored financial fraud is just the ticket.

Right now he is leading the charge for the greatest stroke of foolishness yet conceived. Namely, negative interest rates based on the rubbish theory that the “natural” money market rate of interest is at an extraordinarily low point. Accordingly, the central bank should drive the “policy rate” to sub-zero levels in order to achieve the appropriate level of “accommodation” in an economy that refuses to attain “escape velocity”.


As can’t be pointed out often enough, however, there is no such economic ether as “accommodation”. It’s just a blanket cover story for what Keynesian central bankers believe they are accomplishing by pegging interest rates below market clearing levels and by bending and mangling the yield curve to cause more investment.

But after 86 months it is evident that all of this putative monetary “accommodation” has failed. Falsifying the cost of money and capital can only work if it causes households and businesses to borrow more than they would otherwise; and to then lay credit based spending for consumption and investment goods on top of what can be funded out of current production and income. Another name for that is leveraging private balance sheets and thereby stealing production and income from the future.

With $62 trillion of public and private debt outstanding, however, the US economy has hit a economic barrier called Peak Debt. For all practical purposes, it can be measured as the macroeconomy’s aggregate leverage ratio, which now stands at 3.5X national income. That represents fully two extra turns of debt on the economy relative to the stable 1.50X ratio that prevailed during periods of war and peace and boom and bust during the century before 1970.

Stated differently, the Fed and other central banks have led the world economy into a planetary LBO over the last two decades or so. In the case of the US, the two extra turns of debt resulting from that rolling LBO amount to about $35 trillion.


Yes, that’s a load of anti-growth ballast that explains why there has been no “escape velocity”, and why the rate of real final sales growth since Q4 2007 is only1.3%compared to peak-to-peak historical rates of 2.5% to 3.5%.

And I use peak-to-peak advisedly because it is now clear after the recently released December business sales and inventory numbers that we are on the verge of a recession, if not already in one. Total business sales were down 4.6% from their July 2014 peak and the business sales to inventory ratio rose again to a recessionary high of 1.39X.

Yet the Vicar and his compatriots in the Eccles Building and on Wall Street insist on pushing harder on the credit string——even though Peak Debt means that household debt is still $400 billion below its pre- crisis peak and that the entire $2 trillion gain in business debt has been recycled back into the Wall Street casino via stock buybacks and mindless M&A deals. Real net investment in business plant, equipment and technology, in fact, is actually still 18% below its 2007 peak, and even the level which had been attained at the turn of the century.

So that brings us to the harebrained theory of negative interest rates and the supposed collapse of the “natural rate” of interest on the money market. The latter proposition is just unadulterated economic voodoo. It makes Art Laffer’s magic napkin look like a model of scientific formulation by comparison.

The truth is, there is only one “natural rate” of interest, and that’s the one produced in an honest financial marketplace via the interaction of savers and borrowers. No such rate now exists and hasn’t for decades owing to the massive intrusion of the Fed in the money market. Indeed, as a purely physical matter, even the so-called Federal funds market no longer exists because the Fed has asphyxiated it under a flood of $3.5 trillion of bond-buying and the resulting giant surplus of bank deposits.

So professor Summers is apparently speaking for the kid who killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan. That is, interest rates are in the graveyard of history because the central banks buried them there.

Interest rate pegging and the Fed’s wealth effects doctrine have failed completely, but now Keynesians like Summers claim the contra-factual.

That means the Keynesian medicine didn’t work because the Fed didn’t pump enough monetary stimulants drugs into the nation’s already drug-addled body economic. So now we have to dig even deeper into the netherworld of financial repression in order to align borrowing costs with a non-existent natural rate of interest.

It’s another case of a policy target confected from whole cloth just like the 2% inflation target. But there is one overwhelming practical problem with NIRP. To wit, if it is pushed deeper and broader than just a few basis points of negative yield on deposits of excess bank reserves at the central bank, NIRP will surely cause a flight to old-fashioned bank notes. There will be a booming business in bank note moving and storage.

So, lo and behold, after all these years of doctoring the economy, Professor Summers and fellow travelers like Professor Peter Sands at Harvard, have up and joined the war on crime!

But their newfound abhorrence of crime amounts to an economist’s version of the NRA mantra that guns don’t kill, people do. In this case, it might be said that criminals don’t launder money, avoid taxes and commit act of terrorism, large denomination bills do!

Of course, the latter have been around for centuries. Yet suddenly every NIRP advocate on the planet has joined the campaign to abolish large bills including the Benjamin Franklin here and the EUR 500 note on the other side of the pond.

Thus, Professor Summers opined as followed in a recent Washington Post op ed:



The fact that — as Sands points out — in certain circles the 500 euro note is known as the “Bin Laden” confirms the arguments against it. Sands’ extensive analysis is totally convincing on the linkage between high denomination notes and crime. He is surely right that illicit activities are facilitated when a million dollars weighs 2.2 pounds as with the 500 euro note rather than more than 50 pounds as would be the case if the $20 bill was the high denomination note. And he is equally correct in arguing that technology is obviating whatever need there may ever have been for high denomination notes in legal commerce.

Let’s see. A million dollars worth of weed currently weighs about200 pounds. If push came to shove couldn’t El Chapo have the mules who deliver it to the street carry 50 pounds of bills on the backhaul? Better still, if drug money laundering is such a huge social blight, why not legalize the drug trade and turn the business over to Phillip Morris?

They would surely use digital money to pay their vendors. And if we want to get rid of tax evasion does the good professor really believe that Wall Street high rollers and silicon valley disrupters or just every day rich people actually get paid for whatever they do in bank notes?

The fact is, it is gardeners, waitresses and delivery boys who get paid in cash, not people with meaningful incomes. Yet bringing such putative slackers to justice doesn’t require the abolition of cash in any event. Just exempt them from income and payroll taxes entirely and let them pay their societal dues at the cash register when they purchase goods and services.

In short, there is one reason alone for the sudden campaign to abolish large denomination bills. It is a necessary predicate for the imposition of NIRP. That is to say, it would pave the way for central bank mandated confiscation of the wealth and savings of millions of American citizens in the pursuit of a cockamamie theory that would bring about the final destruction of honest price discovery and financial discipline in the Wall Street casino.

Surely, there is not much more of such destructive intervention that can be tolerated before the booby-traps of leverage and risk that have been built up over the last two decades, but especially since the financial crisis, blow sky high. Indeed, the very idea that the foolish advocates of Keynesian central banking would even entertain the notion of providing outright subsidies to carry trade gamblers—–and that’s where money market NIRP would end up——is a warning sign of the danger that lurks in the financial misty deep.

During the printathon since 2008, Central bankers have been massively and relentlessly deforming financial markets and rewarding the most outlandish and unstable forms of leveraged gambling and risk-taking throughout the warp and woof of the financial system. Yet they have no more clue about the financial time bombs they have planted than they did last time around when CDS and CDOs squared were erupting everywhere.

It is only a matter of time, and a few more bear market rallies, before the meltdown commences again. Indeed, when the impending global recession becomes fully evident, the gamblers in the Wall Street casino will panic like never before.

After a 30-year bubble, they have come to believe that the central banks are infallible and that all economic downturns and market corrections are quickly remedied with new rounds of monetary stimulus. But that is not a permanent financial truth; it’s a false generalization based on a fabulous one-time monetary trick that is already played out.

To wit, central banks have used up their dry powder. After more than two decades of reckless monetary pumping, they are now stranded on the zero bound and possessed of hideously bloated balance sheets.

So the correction scenario this time will be very different. There will be no quick reflation, meaning that the liquidation of economic malinvestments and overvalued financial assets will run for years.

In fact, during the coming down-cycle, the central banks may turn out to be wreckers, not saviors. As they resort to increasingly novel and illogical maneuvers such as negative interest rates (NIRP) they are generating fear, not confidence.

There can be no better proof than what has transpired in Japan since its lunatic central banker, Haruhiko Kuroda, announced a shift to NIRPwithin days after he said it was off the table. Since his January 29 statement, however, the Japanese stock market has plunged by 16% from its early January level and 25% since last summer’s peak, thereby wiping out much of the three-year long stock bubble generated by Abenomics.



^N225 data by YCharts

Nor is Japan’s stumble an isolated case. Warning signs on the epochal shift now underway continue to accumulate on all fronts. The bellwether economies of Asia started the year with a sharp plunge, including a 11.5% export decline compared to last January in China, a 13.5% drop in India and an 18.5% plunge in South Korea.

Likewise, Germany ended 2015 with an unexpected decline in exports and industrial production, while Japan’s trade figures also slipped badly—-with exports down 8% and imports off by 18% versus prior year. Consequently, the Japanese economy posted a recessionary 1.4% contraction of GDP in Q4.

There is no better weathervane on the global economy than the Baltic Dry Index because it captures the daily pulse of global shipments of grains, iron ore and the rest of the commodity complex. The fact that it has now plunged to an all-time low since records began in 1985 underscores that worldwide industrial activity is sinking rapidly.



In response to these deflationary currents, financial markets have retreated sharply on a worldwide basis. Among 44 significant international equity markets, nearly half are already in bear market territory as signaled by a drop of 20% or more from recent highs. And some of the most pivotal markets in the world——-Germany (DAX), Japan and China—–are down by 30% or more.



Not surprisingly, these drastic declines have so far only dented the surface on Wall Street. The unreconstructed bulls are already saying that the correction is over and are urging their clients to once again buy the dip. Nearly ever one of the major banking houses have year-end price targets for the S&P 500 well above current levels. These include a gain of 11% at Goldman, 15% at Morgan Stanley, 16% at Barclay’s and 17% at RBC Capital.

A cynic might dismiss this ebullience as merely an exercise in the usual Wall Street hockey stick game. After all, you can’t sell stock, ETFs and other financial products to investors when you are projecting a down market, and so they never do.

Yet chalking these dubious targets off to salesmanship would be to underestimate the magnitude of the coming crash.The truth of the matter is that Wall Street gamblers, like the Jim Carrey character in The Truman Show, have lived in the bubble for so long that they no longer even remotely grasp the artificiality and unsustainability of the entire financial system.

We think the chart below puts this in perspective. For the better part of three decades, the financial system in the US has been expanding at nearly twice the rate of GDP growth. Even a vague familiarity with the laws of compound arithmetic reminds us that the resulting ever-widening gap between economic output and the market value of stock and debt obligations can’t continue.

But there is an even larger point. Namely, that the weakening performance of the US economy during the last two decades did not warrant the drastic increase in the capitalization rate implied by the chart in the first place.

Stated differently, equities and debt must ultimately be supported by interest and dividends extracted from the flow of national income (GDP). Historically, the stable US financial capitalization rate—that is, the combined value of debt and equity outstanding— had been about 2.0X national income. But beginning with Greenspan’s conversion to money printing after the financial meltdown of October 1987, the capitalization rate begin to steadily climb and never looked back.

Now it amounts to nearly 5.4X national income. Yet this has occurred during a period when the trend growth rate of the US economy has been cut in half——from more than 3.0% per annum to less than 1.3% during the eight years.

Measured in dollar totals, the sum of equity and debt outstanding in the US in 1987 was $11 trillion. Today it exceeds $93 trillion. No wonder asset gatherers like Blackrock have exploded in scale!

But that’s also why they are heading for a big fall. As the post-bubble epoch of global recession and financial deflation and liquidation unfolds, the $93 trillion US financial bubble shown below will contract sharply, as will its equivalent worldwide total of $300 trillion.



So we are looking at tens of trillions of financial asset shrinkage in the years ahead. And nowhere will that implosion be more dramatic than in the ETF sector.

As shown in the chart below, the number of these entities has grown from about 600 to 5,500 in the last 12 years, and AUM has exploded from $450 billion to $3 trillion.That’s a 21% compound rate of growth since 2005.Even more significantly, almost all of that growth occurred after the 2008 financial crisis.



So let’s cut to the chase. Prior to Greenspan’s dotcom bubble, ETFs did not even exist, and they would never thrive on an honest free market. That’s because their fundamental appeal is to professional speculators and traders and to homegamers who like to bet on the financial ponies.

By contrast, there is no reason why real long-term investors would want to own a huge, motley basket of banking stocks or energy stocks or the likes of the biotech ETF portfolio. The latter (IBB) includes 150 different stocks including nearly 100 start-ups whose science is extremely difficult to assess and whose P&Ls are largely non-existent.

The sole purpose of the IBB, therefore, was to enable speculators to pile on to the momentum trade in biotech stocks which incepted about 2012. This momentum trend was then turbo-charged by the inflow of speculative capital into this sector through IBB and other ETF’s.

The same thing happened with the energy ETFs. One of the major ETF baskets in this sector is called XLE and it includes 40 energy companies ranging from giant integrated producers like Exxon to refiners like Valero, to oilfield services companies like Halliburton, to small E&P companies like Newfield Exploration. The iShares equivalent is called IXC and it is even more diversified with 96 companies spread among an even greater diversity of sizes, specializations and geographies.

Needless to say, no long-term investor would possibly believe that such a dog’s breakfast can be rationally analyzed or diligenced at the company specific level. After all, the whole point of competitive markets is to sort out the winners, losers and also-rans at the sector, industry and sub-industry level. So buying the entire industry in a single stock amounts to embracing self-cancelling financial noise and undoing all the hard work of Mr. Market at the operating performance level.

Exchange traded funds, at bottom, are a product of the financial casinos, not the free market. They offer traders and speculators the chance to “bet on black” for just hours, days or weeks at a time based on little more than headlines and momentum. Not surprisingly, the XLE has now completed a round trip to nowhere during the last five years as the oil bubble re-erupted and then collapsed.

The massive amount of trading that occurred continuously up and down this arc was economically pointless. It was a playpen for punters and robo-machines. It added no allocative efficiency or market liquidity at all to the real enterprise of American capitalism.


XLE data by YCharts

The implication is straight forward. The ETF boom functioned as amarket accelerator on the way up. Speculative capital poured into these proliferating funds, and then was intermediated by Wall Street market makers into incremental demand for the thousands of individual stocks that comprise them.

This magnifying effect is important to understand because it highlights the artificiality and instability of today’s stock markets. To wit, every time an ETF started trading above the net asset value of the underlying stocks owing to speculator buying, fund providers issued new ETF shares to market makers. The latter, in turn, bought up a basket of shares on the stock exchanges representing the asset mix of the fund and swapped them for the ETF shares.

We call this the Big Fat Bid that helped undermine the two-way market forces that ordinarily keep speculation in check. But now that the worldwide financial bubble is cracking, we believe the dynamic will begin playing out in reverse. That is, ETFs will now become the Big Fat Offer that takes the market down at an accelerating pace.

The reason is straight forward. The $3 trillion world of ETFs is not an investor marketplace. It is a casino where the fast money moves in and out of short term rips, bubbles and flavors of the moment; and also a dangerous place where naïve retail investors have been lured to roll the dice on their home trading stations.

So as the global economy and financial markets slide into the long, deflationary cycle ahead, the hot money will flee sinking ETFs at an accelerating pace, thereby leaving homegamers shocked to find that they have been fleeced by Wall Street yet again. At length, retail level panic will ensue, causing a thundering implosion of the ETF sector.

What lies ahead for retail investors is probably worse. That’s because ETFs inherently embody a liquidity mismatch. Almost invariably the underlying stocks are not as liquid as the ETF shares which represent them.

This means that retail investors may be faced with painful episodes in which ETF shares gap down violently to deep discounts relative to their net asset value. Accordingly, if shareholders have attempted to protect their portfolios with stop orders, they may handed sharp losses; or they may just panic and sell.

The market plunge on August 26th last year provided a foretaste. In today’s markets, “trading halts” occur when a stock moves up or down too quickly relative to the trading range contained in market circuit breakers. Ordinarily, about 40 such trading halts occur each day, but during the August 26th plunge there were almost 1,300 such occurrences. And 78% involved ETFs, not individual stocks.

This is crucial because ordinarily only one-third of trading halts involved ETF shares. Stated in round numbers, there are ordinarily about 15 ETF trading halts per day, but on August 26th that number soared to 1,000.

Moreover, during this trial panic, the risk of large pricing gaps was painfully evident. The Vanguard consumer staples ETF called VDC, for example, plunged by 32% that day while the underlying holdings of the fund dropped by only 9%. Retail investors who panicked or who were sold out by stop loss orders were taken to the cleaners by the market makers.

The point here is not a plea for SEC regulation. Far from it!

Instead, the implication is that after a few more such episodes during this unfolding bear market——-which must inexorably happen due to the liquidity mismatch—–retail investors will become thoroughly disgusted with ETFs. They will then head for the hills right behind the fast money on Wall Street.

Yet ETFs are only one of the many FEDs (financially explosive devices) that have been fostered by our rogue central bankers. Wait until $700 trillion of financial derivatives start living up to the name Warren Buffett gave them before he went all in using them (“financial WMDs”).

Come to think of it – the crime does not lie in the anti-social behavior our Ben Franklins may occasionally facilitate. The crime is that we are ruled by a self-perpetuating elite of monetary cranks who have become so desperate that they want to eliminate something as natural and harmless as hand-to-hand currency.