To Oppose Free Trade Is To Embrace Violence

TO OPPOSE FREE TRADE IS TO EMBRACE VIOLENCE

Anti-trade ideologies that prefers violence to peace

Ryan McMaken | Mises.org - MARCH 18, 2016

Supporting free trade is simply a matter of taking no action when another person exchanges in non-violent exchange with another person.

That person may be right down the street, or that person may be in another country somewhere. No “free trade agreements” or other paperwork of any kind is required.

To oppose free trade, on the other hand, is to engage in the imposition of fines, prison terms, and other sanctions on people for engaging in non-violent exchange.

The Moral Argument

That latter part is usually ignored by average people who support restrictions on free trade for whatever reason. They frame their opposition to trade as if it were a mere academic question, and as if the reality of restricting free trade were simply a matter of saying “don’t do that” and then everyone will agree to stop doing it.

But, of course, anyone who favors restrictions on free trade needs to go the next step and outline exactly what fines and jail sentences should be imposed on merchants and others who have committed the “crime” of purchasing goods from non-government-approved sources, or who have sold goods to non-government-approved recipients.

Shall fines be $1,000 or $100,000? Shall perpetrators serve 90 days in jail or 5 years in prison? These are the questions that any opponent of free trade must answer. And if the answer is “yes” to any of these questions, let’s then outline which taxpayer-funded government agencies shall be in charge of hunting down the lawbreakers, prosecuting them, and jailing or fining them. The (presumably well-paid and well-pensioned) government agents won’t work for free. What spy apparatus shall be employed to keep an eye on all the potential violators?

And, of course, ignorance of the law will be no excuse, so everyone who wishes to import a trinket or widget from a foreign country will need to know all the laws, regulations, and sanctions that come with such a business venture. To not know this all could mean one’s life will be ruined by federal prosecutors.

For example, if you don’t know the details of the US law known as theLacey Act, you could be serving harsh prison sentences for violatingforeign laws, or for importing fish peacefully acquired, or for engaging in a seemingly endless list of activities that any normal person’s common sense would suggest are peaceful and legal.

Similarly, when Gibson Guitar Corporation was raided by a SWAT team for running afoul of some arcane law about the importation of wood, that was just the natural outcome to be expected from restricting free trade. Those laws were in place to protect domestic lumber industries from imports. But hey, the law’s just there to protect American, workers, right? So, apparently, it’s fine if those Gibson guitar people have their livelihoods and families ruined by legal fees, fines, and jail sentences.

Opponents of free trade, like supporters of the anti-Cuban embargo, for example, like to talk a good game about supporting freedom and liberty, but when all is said and done, their policies amount to nothing more than the sordid jailing and prosecution of non-violent merchants and consumers.

The anti-trade crowd likes to tell themselves that these laws only punish cigar-chomping villains in skyscrapers, but that’s not how laws work. Since laws aren’t written to apply to specific companies, they punish certain behaviors instead. Such laws may indeed restrict big, evil corporations, but they also end up applying to small entrepreneurs and small business owners, most of whom lack an army of attorneys, and usually end up in a far worse position than any big company might. Like the owners of the Gibson Guitar Corporation, many small- and medium-sized business owners simply seek out the lowest-cost goods so they can offer goods to their customers at a lower price. Those goods are often located in foreign countries. But, without an immense legal team, most ordinary people will be caught up in the net of trade restrictions.
The Economic Argument

So far, this all ignores the economic arguments against restricting free trade. Those of us not engaged in the direct importation of goods will also suffer when goods are restricted. Trade restrictions on pharmaceuticals, auto parts, food, and whatever else only makes those goods more expensive. And not all those goods are consumption goods, of course. Entrepreneurs use those goods to create new goods and then must charge higher prices to his customers also. A janitor who must pay higher prices for a truck or a shop vac due to trade restrictions must pass on a portion of that cost to the customer. And, with higher prices, the janitors will have fewer customers and fewer profits. Shopkeepers in turn must then have dirtier shops because they can afford fewer janitorial services.

Yes, a tiny portion of the population that’s engaged in the domestic manufacture of shop vacs and trucks will benefit. But, it’s the janitors and their customers (the hair salon and sandwich-shop owners) who are paying the price of subsidizing the factory workers.

These issues aren’t part of an intellectual exercise. The downside of restricted trade is very real for real people.

But, we don’t need me to explain the economic problem with restricting trade. Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and the entire line of liberal, laissez faire economists agree on this point.
The Nationalist Argument

The nationalist program of using protectionism to shield American workers from competition is based on the idea that trade with outsiders hurts the local economy. But many who accept this idea in the international sphere then promptly forget the idea when applied domestically.

For example, we’re told by the nationalists that it hurts California workers if Californians buy goods from neighboring Mexico, but it’s apparently A-OK for Californians to buy goods from Illinois or New York, both of which are distant economies that likely contribute far less to the economic well-being of Californians than the economy of northern Mexico.

Murray Rothbard mocked this mindset in the context of immigration when he wondered why it’s not a problem when someone moves from Massachusetts to take a job in Michigan. In that case, the response is never to complain about how people from Massachusetts are stealing the jobs of people in Michigan. No, the argument is only applied if someone crosses an international boundary to do the same.

As with trade, then, it’s bizarre to argue that goods imported from Virginia to California are perfectly tolerable — and even beneficial — while imports from neighboring Tijuana are somehow damaging.

Rothbard noted the idea becomes more absurd the more local you get. The proposed economic justification for “Buy American” is no different from the demand to “Buy North Dakotan” or “Buy 55th Street.” While there certainly are groups that promote only buying goods from one’s home states (i.e., the “ABC — Always Buy Colorado” campaign), such efforts rarely rise above being a marketing gimmick and virtually no one supports trade restrictions between states.

Thus, by their actions, the demonstrated preference of Americans is to take advantage of the benefits of buying and using goods made thousands of miles away by people they’ll never meet. That is, they clearly accept the benefits of trade with a far-away economy (as is the case of trade between San Francisco and St. Louis), but they then turn around and reject the same reality when dealing with international trade.

At the heart of this mindset is pure mysticism, of course, since it requires one to believe that a person in Brownsville, Texas, has the same economic interests as a person in Portland, Maine, but entirely different interests from a person in nearby Monterrey, Mexico. It requires a belief in some sort of metaphysical or perhaps physically objective difference between humans in Monterrey and humans in Portland.

Even the most basic powers of observation should disabuse one of such a strange notion, and yet, American discussions of trade accept the idea as a given.

Left to their own peaceful trade, of course, such ideas would evaporate quickly as people pursued mutually beneficial economic relationships across borders and barriers of every kind.

Today however, we must continue to deal with people who accept an anti-trade ideology that prefers violence to peace, and coercion to freedom. Unfortunately, governments are perfectly happy to oblige them.

Freedom And Liberty Both Lose In November

REGARDLESS WHO WINS IN NOVEMBER, FREEDOM AND LIBERTY BOTH LOSE

Candidates sometimes speak the language of liberty but do so interwoven with inconsistencies and contradictions

Richard M. Ebeling | The Future of Freedom Foundation - MARCH 16, 2016

Let us be clear. We are living, right now, in a time of emotional fear, hysterical anger, illogical demands, and dangerous temptations. In other words, liberty and prosperity are at risk. A decent and tolerant society is threatened. Common principles of humanity are being undermined.

All of this is concentrated and has been brought to a head in the rhetorical clamor and campaign conflagrations of a presidential election year. To try to understand what is going on, a mountain of words have been spoken by serious think tank scholars, by Sunday morning talk show pundits, or by evening television news 15-second “in-depth” interpreters, as well as miles of written commentaries that have been offered in hardcopy or on the online media and blog sites.

Pandering and Plundering Politicians, Left and Right

On the Democrat Party side, how can a corrupt, manipulative, lying, life-long power-lusting insider like Hillary Clinton be taken seriously and to be, seemingly, riding high to her party’s presidential candidate? How can a self-proclaimed “democratic” socialist, who has praised and apologized for communist dictatorships in Latin America and who chose to honeymoon with his bride in the former Soviet Union, arouse the mass enthusiasm of millions who see him as the deliverer of a transformative “political revolution” in America?


On the Republican Party side, how can a bombastic, rude and crude user of government privilege and favoritism for his business interests, like Donald Trump, who speaks most of the time in empty phrases and wrong-headed illogic on numerous economic and social issues, victoriously steamroll through state primaries and garner the support of millions merely because, many of those multitudes say, “he says it like it is”?

How can we explain the fate of the field of other Republican candidates, heralded in the summer of 2015 as the finest group of minds offered by the GOP for the office of the presidency in several decades? As the autumn began, one of them after another, first in the debates and the public opinion polls, and then in the primaries, failed to inspire or distinguish themselves. Each fell victim to voter indifference and then to Donald Trump’s meat grinder. Until, now, hardly any remain standing.

And what of the voters? Facing an uncertain employment future, experiencing seeming stagnant or low wage improvements, disoriented by a changing cultural environment; angered by political promises unfulfilled by those elected to high political office, as well as burdensome taxation and heavy-handed regulation; frustrated by crony “insiders” close to politicians and bureaucrats who “rig the game” for the benefit of special interests while leaving the costs and lost opportunities on the shoulders of ordinary citizens Sam and Sally, who have none of the “pull” to influence things their way, now insist: “We’ve had enough and we’re not going to take it any more.”

Broken Constitutions and Noses to Get What You Want

This is the sentiment and insistence of a sizable number of voters. And if it takes a socialist with utopian dreams dancing in his head, or a boorish billionaire who says he knows how to fix a broken system because he’s been playing it for decades for all its worth, then so be it. Put the “strongman” in charge to shake things up and give the ordinary guy an even break.

If it takes bending the Constitution or tearing down the wealth and position of some, well, those insiders and fat cats, those “establishment” types, have been rigging the rules for as long as can be remembered. So its time someone stuck it to them with some of the same political power, just in “the people’s” direction for a change.

And if some people have to be “roughed up,” if their words need to be shouted down or shut up, again, we’ve had enough of what they have had to say. Of course, who the “we” are and who the “they” are all depends upon who the “you” is.

Are you referring to the radical college professor who calls for some “muscle” to drive away a news reporter covering a campus demonstrationagainst freedom of speech? Or a presidential candidate who gets cheers from his followers when he suggests that a physical altercation against protesters at their meeting is a lot more fun than listening to a boring campaign speech?

What we are witnessing are the latest episodes in the continuing bankruptcy of the modern American political system. These millions of voters all along the political spectrum wrap their frustrations and demands in rhetoric of either restoring or establishing “real” and “true” American values.


Long Down the Road of Lost Liberty

The fact is the original or traditional premises and values of the American system have been eroding away for almost a century, now. Several decades ago, the libertarian social analyst and critic, Garet Garrett, penned an essay with the title, “The Revolution Was.” He pointed out that too many people concerned with the preservation of the American constitutional system of government and a free society failed to appreciate how much of the ideas and institutions for a society of liberty had already been eroded away by forces opposed to its preservation.

We are a lot further along this path today from when Garet Garrett tried to point out how far away from a free society we had already moved. To appreciate this, we must first remind ourselves what are the premises and institutions upon which a free society ultimately stands or falls.

The philosophical foundations were expressed, of course, in the Declaration of Independence, when the authors in 1776 insisted that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that government is formed among men to secure these rights from their violation by private individuals and groups or from government itself.

To guard against such violations by government, the very political institution meant to secure liberty is formally restrained in how it may use and apply its legitimized use of force in human affairs by constitutional rules. The American Constitution was meant to clearly demarcate the limited and enumerated functions of the federal government, with the additional restraining device of “divided government” between the branches of the federal government and then between the federal government and the duties and responsibilities of the individual state governments.

The restraining of government was meant to assure that political power remained a servant of the citizenry and their individual rights, and not a threatening master taking away or reducing their liberty. Secondly, federal government in terms of divided responsibility among national, state and local political decision-making was meant to reflect functions needing to be performed at different horizons of importance to the citizens, and to keep government control and decision-making as close to those citizens as those different governmental tasks allowed.

Freedom Needs Habits of the Heart and Mind

But pieces of paper upon which are written the administrative duties and responsibilities of different levels and branches of government is not sufficient in itself to maintain a society of individuals secure and protected in their rights. As the famous French social philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville, pointed out in his Democracy in America, written after his extended visit to the United States in the 1830s, the free society is more than elections, and legislative procedures, or a written constitution. It is based upon “habits of the heart” and “character of the mind.”

That is, it is dependent upon a wide network of “structures of shared meaning” and values among the members of a society. They must believe in human worth, that is, the dignity of each individual, and a respect for and tolerance of the diversity of men’s dreams, wishes, hopes and values. And most importantly, that each and every individual has a “natural” or inviolable right to their own life, to be lived peacefully and honestly in whatever manner and form that the individual considers most likely to bring him meaning, happiness and fulfillment of the goals and purposes that he sets for himself.

There must be a shared view that human relationships should be based on voluntary consent and mutual agreement. Coercion and physical threat or intimidation in any and all forms should form no part in the patterns of human association and relationship. And that government’s own use of force should be reserved and restricted to its “negative” application, that is, always and only in defensively protecting people’s rights to their life, liberty and honestly acquired property and not any types of violation or weakening of these rights.

There needs to be at least an implicit agreement among the members of such a free society that what a man has honestly and peacefully earned through his mental and physical labors and his voluntary exchanges with others is rightfully his. Accumulated wealth and income, as long as it has been honesty and peacefully acquired, is not a mark of injustice or unfairness or unethical conduct, but rather an indication of the industry, energy, and successful effort in improving an individual’s own circumstances through mutually beneficial production, trade and association with others.

And more broadly, there needs to be a spirit and sense that whatever differences may exist among individuals due to accident of birth or social and historical circumstances, the idea and ideal is that each person is looked at, judged and evaluated as an individual in terms of his distinct qualities, characteristics, talents, abilities and achievements as an human being and not as a member of a collective group. Political and economic individualism should be matched with ethical and social individualism as we look at, interact and treat others in the community of mankind.

These principles and ideals when shared in common, again to use de Tocqueville’s phrases, the “habits of the heart” and “character of the mind,” gives unity to the members of a free society, while at the same time providing the respect, tolerance and “space” for diversities of among men as expressed in their individual and social interactive goals, purposes, ends, values and meanings for life and happiness.


American History an Incomplete Reflection of Its Own Ideals

America, of course, has never fully lived up to this conception of man, society and government. Slavery deprived humanity to millions during the first half of the country’s history; this was followed by legally imposed discrimination laws and practices that contemptuously treated those who were equal citizens of the nation as less than fully human as peaceful associative relationships and economic opportunities were closed to them in the name of explicit and implicit racial inequality.

Government, even in the early days of the nation’s history, never confined itself within the constraint of protecting rights rather than plundering them. Corruption, political special interest pandering, and misuse of the fiscal purse strings resulted in state and federal regulations and favoritism benefiting some at the expense of many others. Tariffs, subsidies, land grants, monopolies, and financial contracts awarding government money to companies undertaking “internal improvements” (public works projects in the more modern language) assured that the peacefully and productively earned income and wealth of many were politically transferred into the hands of those close to and influential over those holding political office.

However Incomplete, American Practice Gave Liberty to Multitudes

But however imperfect and hypocritical in practice, it remained nonetheless the fact that the idea and ideal of political, economic and social individualism were more believed in and implemented in the United States in the nineteenth century and into the 20th century than anywhere else on the face of the globe.

It generated a spirit of optimism, hope and effort that fostered multitudes to live and experience the fruits of those ideas and ideals to a degree never known before in human history. It gave Americans – even with the contradictions, inconsistencies and corruptions – a higher standard of living and a greater degree of actual individual freedom and opportunity than in any other part of the world.

The older or “classical” liberalism of the nineteenth century had called for the end of these various political privileges and forms of favoritism, that is, to abolish these remaining governmental inconsistences and exceptions. And it called for the social spirit of individualism and free market competition to overcome those attitudes and actions by people in contradiction with a full respect and tolerance of the dignity of men as individuals.

The Collectivist Counter-Revolution Against Liberty
But before these forces of liberal individualism could complete the liberation of humanity from plunder and prejudice, a counter-revolution emerged, a counter-revolution of new forms of collectivism, statism, and socialism. They rejected the individualist ideal and insisted that the group and the tribe came before the individual human being; that any person’s sense of identity and position in society was determined by and dependent upon into what “social class,” or racial group, or nation-state the individual was born and lived.

Any hardship, disappointment and sense of mistreatment or frustration experienced by an individual was the result of the exploitive, or oppressive, or “socially unjust” actions of those in some other social or racial group or nation-state other than the one to which he belonged.

Individual responsibility was replaced by group status and privilege. Rights were not something unalienable and belonging to individuals; instead, “rights” were “entitlements” belonging to members of a categorized group, and for the provision of which individuals in other groups were obligated to provide and supply.

The idea of a common humanity among all men as individuals was slowly but surely replaced with the notion of group “identities” based upon which the individual’s sense of self-esteem or social position and belonging was dependent.

Politics and the political process was not a restrained and limited institutional method for finding the most effective and efficient ways of delineating, protecting and enforcing the individual rights of each citizen to their life, liberty and honestly acquired property. Instead, politics and the political process was conceived as the arena in which the power of the government was captured and used to “redress grievances” by using legal force to redistribute wealth, reorder social and other status positions of privilege and favor for the benefit of “deserving” groups in place of “undeserving” groups.


Freedoms Curtailed for Controlled Entitlement

Freedom of speech and the press, the right of peaceful assembly and association were no longer considered the avenues through which each individual’s right to express, share, debate and manifest his ideas and ideals was guaranteed by limiting government’s ability to interfere with such peaceful acts and interactions.

Instead, freedom of speech and the press and freedom of association came to be considered tools of intellectual and ideological control and exploitation by the “powerful” against the social, racial or gender “under-privileged.” And as such, the spoken and written word and any forms and types of permitted association had to be modified, molded and controlled to assure collective social, racial and gender equity and balanced access and privilege through governmental regulation and planning.

Collectivist “Rights” Through Political Action

The individual was, now, portrayed as too weak and inconsequential to find his own way to betterment and happiness in such a setting of social, racial and gender oppression. Personal liberty and free association in the marketplace and other voluntary settings were declared to be “illusionary” notions of freedom.

“True” freedom and opportunity could only come through the advancement of the social, racial and gender group to which one belonged in a political competition for entitlement “rights.” In this circumstance, each group had to have leaders and leaderships that expressed and represented the “real” and “just” interests of the group for which they claimed the right, duty and responsibility to speak and act.

This road from political, economic and social individualism to collectivist identity and privilege through group competition for political power is what has brought us to our current political crisis as captured in this year’s presidential campaign.

Your job security is uncertain? Your income has not increased the way you had wished and desired? Your social status and acceptance by others has not matched your expectations and personal sense of deservedness? The ideas you want accepted by others and the actions and attitudes you want others to follow and express have not materialized?

Then the task is to use the government to give you what you want, and to force and compel others in society to conform to your vision of the good, right and just. If mouths have to be shut when you consider them to be speaking evil or “hurtful” words, if people must be coerced to act in the way you want them to, if wealth and opportunities of life must be redistributed by government’s police power so you and others in our group may have what you consider that which you rightful deserve, then so be it. That is the means and methods of “true” democracy, since if you and your group do not use government to get what you want, some other groups will do so at your expense.

This is the new America system: a democratic politics of power, plunder and privilege in a perpetual social conflict of social classes, racial groups and gender identities. It is a system in which the individual seems weak, small and powerless; and needing “leaders” who will use politics to bring them to the social, economic, racial and gender “promised lands” that are laid before the constituent-voters, if only this or that political candidate is elected to set the world right for the benefit of a coalition of collective groups who want certain things and to which they are told they are entitled.

This the outcome of the journey from liberal individualism to political collectivism that has placed before us Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and a cast of other remaining candidates who sometimes speak the language of liberty but do so interwoven with inconsistencies and contradictions that leave the message of freedom with no fully principled spokesman in this year’s race to the White House.

The path back to and forward towards liberty, therefore, will have to be journeyed far beyond the outcome of this November’s election.

Merrick Garland Is Obama's Supreme Court Nomination

OBAMA NOMINATES MERRICK GARLAND TO REPLACE SCALIA ON SUPREME COURT

...But Senate Dems passed resolution against election year appointments

RT - MARCH 16, 2016

President Barack Obama announced Judge Merrick Garland as his nominee to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, likely triggering a fierce battle with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block anyone from being appointed.

During a Rose Garden ceremony at the White House, Obama said his selection was extremely qualified for the position and that the Senate should take its responsibility to consider a nominee seriously.

Obama said that he chose Garland after an “exhaustive process,” calling the judge “one of America’s sharpest legal minds.”


Garland possesses honesty and integrity, as well as “respect and admiration from both sides of the aisle,” he added.

Garland is considered a moderate liberal justice. The 63-year-old is the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Having served for nearly 20 years on the court, Garland was confirmed in a 76-23 vote back in 1997, earning the backing of 32 Republicans. He was also on the short list for the Supreme Court the last two times Obama appointed a nominee. In 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) pushed Obama to nominate Garland instead of now-Justice Elena Kagan because “he would be very well supported by all sides.”

Garland was also a longtime prosecutor who helped the Justice Department who oversaw investigations into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He graduated from Harvard Law School, worked as a clerk for Justice William Brennan, and worked at the multinational law firm Arnold and Porte.

At 63, Garland is the oldest nominee since President Richard Nixon nominated Justice Lewis Powell in 1971. He is two years older than Chief Justice John Roberts, marking a break from trend of presidents nominating younger justices to ensure they remain on the court for decades.

Prior to the president’s announcement, reports from Reuters suggested that Obama’s final decision was between federal appeals judges Garland and Sri Srinivasan. In an email, Obama laid out his thinking on the selection process.

“In putting forward a nominee today, I am fulfilling my constitutional duty. I’m doing my job,” the president wrote. “I hope that our Senators will do their jobs, and move quickly to consider my nominee. That is what the Constitution dictates, and that’s what the American people expect and deserve from their leaders.”

Obama added that any nominee should possess an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and a mastery of the law. Secondly, the justice should understand the judiciary system’s limits, and that the Supreme Court’s job is not to make the law but rather to interpret it.

Finally, the president said any nominee must understand “that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook,” and that they must grasp “the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing times.”

Regardless of any nominee’s qualifications, the Supreme Court nomination process will likely be embroiled in a political battle considering 2016 is a presidential election year. Any appointment could dramatically alter the balance of the court, currently filled with four conservative and four liberal justices.

Ever since Scalia’s death in mid-February, which occurred with 11 months left in Obama’s second term, Republicans have promised to block any nominee from consideration, much less a confirmation vote. They have argued that Obama should not appoint a justice in the middle of an election year, and that the next president should be able to make the decision.

Democrats, including Obama, have countered that it is the president’s constitutional responsibility to nominate someone and that it is the Senate’s responsibility to consider them.

Russia Announces Syria Troop Pullout

RUSSIA ANNOUNCES SYRIA TROOP PULLOUT, PUTIN SAYS MAIN GOALS ACHIEVED

How will Obama administration respond?

Lydia Tomkiw | International Business Times - MARCH 14, 2016

Russia's main troops will withdraw from Syria beginning Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday. The Russian leader said he had achieved his goals after the Kremlin began airstrikes in Syria in late September, the BBC reported.

Putin spoke with Syrian President Bashar Assad about his decision, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed. The sudden announcement, close to the five-year anniversary of the conflict, comes as peace talks in Geneva continued Monday. Western leaders have accused Putin of using Russian airstrikes to prop up the regime of longtime ally Assad.

Russia's economy has been badly battered following the drop in oil prices and continuing Western economic sanctions over the country's 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Low oil prices have forced the Kremlin to cut back its military budget by 5 percent in 2016, a move Putin still has to approve.

"I think that the tasks set to the defense ministry are generally fulfilled. That is why I order to begin withdrawal of most of our military group from Syria starting from tomorrow," Putin said, according to Russian news agency TASS. "Besides, our military, soldiers and officers demonstrated professionalism, teamwork and ability to organize combat work far away from their territory, having no common borders with the theater of war.”

Russia’s military operation in Syria has cost the government approximately $3 million a day, according to figures from IHS Jane’s, a military analysis group. Putin said he hoped the withdrawal of troops would help the peace process in Syria and instructed Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to increase Russia’s role in the peace process. Putin said Russia’s Hmeimim airbase, in Syria's coastal province of Latakia, and its port at Tartus would both continue operating.

In a telephone conversation, Putin and Assad discussed how Russia’s intervention in the conflict had “brought about a real turnabout in the fight against the terrorists in Syria,” according to a statement issued by the Kremlin. The leaders said the ceasefire agreed to between the U.S. and Russia at the end of February had decreased the death toll. The Syrian leader said he was prepared to discuss a political settlement to the continuing conflict “as soon as possible.” Both leaders said they hoped the United Nations-backed talks in Geneva would lead to results.

The civil war in Syria has left over 250,000 dead and displaced millions, partly spurring the refugee crisis in Europe.

Antibiotic Resistance Threat Is Real And Immediate

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE IS NOT THEORETICAL: THE THREAT IS REAL AND IMMEDIATE

On the 61st anniversary of Alexander Fleming’s death, we are on the road back to where he started: the days of people dying from common infections and injuries

Mandeep Dhaliwal | The Guardian - MARCH 11, 2016

In 1928, as Alexander Fleming was sorting through a pile of petri dishes that he’d been cultivating bacteria in, he noticed something unusual. Mold growing in one of the dishes had created a bacteria-free circle around itself. After taking samples of the mold he found it belonged to the penicillium family. Fleming had accidentally stumbled across penicillin, the first antibiotic.

Although Fleming published a paper on the new discovery, it was largely ignored until the 1940s and the onset of World War II. With positive tests in mice and humans showing the true power of penicillin, the US government actively pushed industry into the mass production of the drug. By the end of the war, U.S. companies were making more than 650 billion units a month, which saved tens of thousands of lives then and millions since.

Today marks 61 years since the death of Fleming, and his discovery is still hailed as one of the greatest in medical history. However, we are now facing the prospect of this progress being undone, with the emerging crisis of new strains of antimicrobial resistant bacteria effectively nullifying existing antibiotics. We are on the road back to the days of people dying from common infections and injuries.

According to a study conducted in the UK, following direct intervention by the Prime Minister David Cameron, if we fail to find effective antibiotics and manufacture them at the scale needed, ten million people a year across the world will die by 2050. This would make antimicrobial resistance the world’s single biggest killer. The loss to global GDP will be $100 trillion (more than the whole global economy put together).

In November 2015, scientists declared that they had discovered bacteria resistant to the antibiotic of last resort, colistin. Furthermore, the resistant gene was found to transfer between bacteria strains, meaning many types of infection could quickly become untreatable.
Advertisement

The alarm is still ringing around the world but with coordinated action between government, industry, civil society and the public at the international, national and local levels, we can still turn the tide against antimicrobial resistance.

At the national level, governments are starting to take action. Obama, Cameron and Modi have all made personal statements about the need for action against antimicrobial resistance. The UK government has committed $300 million to support microbiology surveillance capacity in developing countries. G-7 and G-20 leaders have committed to take action and at the World Economic Forum in Davos, more than 80 companies committed to develop sustainable markets for antibiotics and to reinvigorate the basic scientific research and development needed to create a new generation of lifesaving drugs.

Action at the local level involves simple hand washing and immunization campaigns to stop the spread of infections in the first place. Thanks to public pressure, the food industry has also started to take action to reduce the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture. Civil society has a critical role to play both raising attention about how to avoid infection and to educate patients about the proper use of antibiotics, including when to take them and the importance of taking the full course of treatment.

Misuse is a global problem: in many countries, antibiotics are available over the counter at pharmacies, often in part because some areas don’t have enough doctors to responsibly prescribe antibiotics to those who need them. A new study published in PLOS found that lack of access to effective and affordable antibiotics still kills more children in India than drug resistance. If we don’t change the approach that has led us down this dark path, then any new antibiotics found will simply delay the problem.

This month, the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicine is holding global meetings in London and Johannesburg to discuss new ideas, thoughts and innovative ways that governments, civil society, pharmaceutical groups, human rights lawyers and academia can help both promote innovation and increase access to vaccines, diagnostics and medicines. The antimicrobial resistance crisis gives added urgency to the development of the Panel’s report, which will be released in June.

Last year we saw a breakthrough: entirely new antibiotics were discovered for the first time in almost thirty years. To develop approximately 15 new drugs would cost $16-35 billion over the next ten years, which pales in significance to the estimated $100 trillion decrease in lost global economic output if we do not take action now.


Between the 20 richest countries and the major pharmaceutical companies there is no excuse for not finding the money needed (approximately $2 billion per year) to tackle the crisis. The return on investment makes it the right economic decision.

Unlike Fleming in 1928, we know how important antibiotics are and what is needed to protect the world from a doomsday scenario. We have all the information at hand to make critical policy changes. Drug resistance is not a theoretical threat that we should probably do something about. The science is clear: the threat is real and immediate. Now action must follow.

Russia Threatens Invasion If North Korea Nuclear Rhetoric Continues

RUSSIA THREATENS INVASION IF NORTH KOREA NUCLEAR RHETORIC CONTINUES

The warning was issued in the form of a written statement from the Russian foreign ministry

Daily Caller | Russ Read - MARCH 9, 2016

North Korea’s provocative nuclear rhetoric has gotten so bad even the Kremlin has come out against the hermit kingdom, warning continued nuclear threats could justify an invasion.

The warning was issued in the form of a written statement from the Russian foreign ministry. It follows North Korea’s threat it would engage in a “preemptive and offensive nuclear strike” in reaction to the start of joint U.S.-South Korean war games Monday.

“We consider it to be absolutely impermissible to make public statements containing threats to deliver some ‘preventive nuclear strikes’ against opponents,” said the statement, as translated by the Russian TASS news agency. “Pyongyang should be aware of the fact that in this way the DPRK [North Korea] will become fully opposed to the international community and will create international legal grounds for using military force against itself in accordance with the right of a state to self-defense enshrined in the United Nations Charter.”

Russia also had harsh words for the U.S. and South Korea, condemning the “unprecedented” exercises. “The development of the situation on the Korean peninsula and around it is causing growing concern,” said a statement issued Monday, as reported by the Kremlin-funded RT news channel.

Part of the planned war games involved the U.S. and South Korea simulating strikes against North Korea’s nuclear facilities and special forces raids against Pyongyang leadership. Around 17,000 U.S. personnel and 300,000 South Korean personnel are participating in the ongoing eight-week war game. The troop levels represent about a one-third increase from last year’s similar war game.

North Korea’s sabre-rattling has reached a fever pitch in recent months. The pariah state carried out its fourth nuclear test in January and launched a rocket in violation of international sanctions in February. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned Congress in early February that North Korea had restarted its plutonium reactor and was poised to produce weapons-grade nuclear material within weeks.

In response to North Korean provocations, the United Nations security council voted unanimously last Thursday to pass a new round of sanctions against the country.

Rothschild Family Indicted

ROTHSCHILD FAMILY INDICTED, MAINSTREAM MEDIA SILENT

Indictment could mean the beginning of the end for one of humanity's largest enemies

Jon Bowne | Infowars.com - MARCH 9, 2016

The indictment of a Rothschild is not simply another dirty banker being brought to justice.

The imprisonment of the controlling interest of life on Earth would mean a stop to endless wars, illegal mass surveillance, debt slavery, and a Luciferian cultural agenda. Basically, peace on Earth.

Iran Threatens To Walk Away From Nuke Deal

Iran Threatens to Walk Away From Nuke Deal After New Missile Test

Islamic Republic breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles

BY: Adam Kredo
March 8, 2016 12:40 pm


Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”

“If our interests are not met under the nuclear deal, there will be no reason for us to continue,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, warned during remarks delivered to a group of Iranian officials in Tehran.

“If other parties decide, they could easily violate the deal,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by Iran’s state-controlled media. “However, they know this will come with costs.”

Araqchi appeared to allude to the United States possibly leveling new economic sanctions as a result of the missile test. The Obama administration moved forward with new sanctions earlier this year as a result of the country’s previous missile tests.

Iran’s latest missile test drew outrage from longtime regime critics on Capitol Hill.

“The administration’s response to Iran’s new salvo of threatening missile tests in violation of international law cannot once again be, it’s ‘not supposed to be doing that,’” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said in a statement. “Now is the time for new crippling sanctions against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ministry of Defense, Aerospace Industries Organization, and other related entities driving the Iranian ballistic missile program.”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) warned that the nuclear agreement has done little to moderate Iran’s rogue behavior.

“Far from pushing Iran to a more moderate engagement with its neighbors, this nuclear deal is enabling Iran’s aggression and terrorist activities,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Sanctions relief is fueling Iran’s proxies from Yemen to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon. Meanwhile, Khamenei and the Iranian regime are acting with impunity because they know President Obama will not hold them accountable and risk the public destruction of his nuclear deal, the cornerstone of the president’s foreign policy legacy.”

McCarthy went on to demand that the Obama administration step forward with new sanctions as punishment for the missile test.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had difficulty Monday explaining why the nuclear agreement limits public reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, on potential deal violations by Iran.

Yukiya Amano, the IAEA’s chief, disclosed on Monday that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the deal. The limited public reporting is a byproduct of the nuclear agreement, according to Amano.

When asked about these comments again Tuesday, a State Department official told the Free Beacon that the IAEA’s reports would continue to provide a complete picture of Iran’s nuclear program, though it remains unclear if this information will be made publicly available.

“There isn’t less stringent monitoring or reporting on Iran’s nuclear program,” the official said. “The IAEA’s access to Iran’s nuclear program and its authorization to report on it has actually expanded. It’s a distortion to say that if there is less detail in the first and only post-Implementation Day IAEA report then that somehow implies less stringent monitoring or less insight into Iran’s nuclear program.”

While the IAEA “needs to report on different issues” under the final version of the nuclear agreement, the agency continues to provide “a tremendous amount of information about Iran’s current, much smaller nuclear program,” the source maintained.

The IAEA’s most recent February report—which was viewed by nuclear experts as incomplete and short on detail—“accurately portrays the status of Iran’s nuclear program,” including its efforts to uphold the nuclear deal, the official added.

“We expect this professional level of reporting to continue in the future,” the official said.

Secret Societies Are No Longer A Secret

SECRET SOCIETIES ARE NO LONGER A SECRET

The era of the New World Order hiding in the shadows is over

Jon Bowne | Infowars.com - MARCH 9, 2016

Now, the powerful political elite that have gradually lost the shield provided by a disintegrating public trust, can no longer hide from their mountains of crimes against humanity.

27 Giant Profitable Companies Paid No Taxes

27 GIANT PROFITABLE COMPANIES PAID NO TAXES

...Meanwhile Americans not inside D.C. are overtaxed

USA Today - MARCH 7, 2016

Death and taxes are supposed to be two certainties of life. But a few companies have at least escaped the taxes part.

There are 27 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500, including telecom firm Level 3 Communications (LVLT), airline United Continental (UAL) and automaker General Motors (GM), that reported paying no income tax expense in 2015 despite reporting pre-tax profits, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Only profitable firms were included in the analysis since firms that lost money - like many energy companies - wouldn't be expected to pay taxes.

Escaping the taxman, so far, hasn't been an advantage at least in the eyes of investors. Shares of the companies that paid no taxes are down 11% on average over the past 12 months, which is more than twice the 4.8% decline by the S&P 500 during the same period.

The underperformance might come as a bit of a surprise given how much time and effort some companies have put into lowering their tax bills.

"Income tax issues, while important, are not as important as how well as company is doing or how well an industry is performing," says Bill Selesky, investment analyst at Argus Research. "It gets to be an issue that I would put at the bottom of the list."

Yet, investors have paid closer attention to the tax rates companies pay as profit growth continues to stall along with revenue growth.

Companies must find any way possible to boost their bottom line, which for some involves looking for ways to reduce their tax liabilities.

Some have taken advantage of lower overseas tax rates, a practice that has drawn criticism. Drugmaker Pfizer (PFE) last year, for instance, drew fire last year for a plan to merge with rival Allergan (AGN) and move its headquarters to Ireland.

And on Sunday night, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took aim Johnson Controls (JCI), which is planning to merge with Tyco (TYC) and move its headquarters to Ireland.

"I am also going to go after companies like Johnson Controls in Wisconsin," Clinton said. "They came and got part of the bailout because they were an auto parts supplier. Now they want to move headquarters to Europe. They are going to have to pay an exit fee. We are going to stop this kind of job exporting and we are going to start importing and growing jobs again in our country."

Three of the 27 companies that paid no income tax in 2015 are based outside the U.S. including healthcare firm Mallinckrodt (MNK), financial firm Willis Towers Watson (WLTW) and insurer XL Group (XL). Several are real-estate investment trusts (REITs). Their unique “pass-through” accounting, which shifts the tax burden to shareholders rather than the company itself, has become a more popular structure as companies look to convert to REITs.

There are a number of reasons why a profitable company may not pay taxes. For instance, years of deep losses can affect a tax bill.

Take United Continental, which reported a $3.2 billion income tax credit in 2015 despite reporting earnings before taxes of $4.2 billion. Accounting rules allow the airline to offset taxes due with valuation allowances resulting from losses in past years. During 2015, these allowances amounted to $4.7 billion which erased the company's $1.5 billion tax bill based on its normal corporate tax rate.

It was a similar situation at Level 3. The company booked a tax credit of $3.2 billion in 2015 despite recording a pre-tax profit of $283 million in the same year. The tax gain was the result of credits associated with losses in previous years in addition to losses at Colorado-based TW Telecom, which Level 3 bought in 2014.

Not all companies breakdown in detail where they paid taxes, be it in the U.S. or elsewhere. But the location can be important to the overall taxes companies pay.

In 2015, General Motors saw a tax credit of of $1.9 billion, even though its earnings before taxes hit $7.7 billion. Uncle Sam got his due, as the company reported a U.S. federal income tax expense of more than $1 billion. Yet the company's global tax bill was a credit thanks mostly to a tax break connected with General Motors Europe.

Investors, though, should know many of these tax breaks and credits will likely eventually run out. United's 2015 annual regulatory filing warns investors as much: "The Company anticipates its effective tax rate will be approximately 37%, which reflects a more normalized rate after the release of the tax valuation allowance in 2015 and is based on the Company’s relative mix of domestic, foreign and state income tax expense."

And at GM, "this benefit will slowly dissipate over the 2016 and 2017 time frame," says Argus' Selesky says. He doesn't think it will be a problem, though.

"Assuming a decent global economy and a good mix of international revenue versus domestic U.S. revenue, GM should not have a problem counteracting that tax credit with better sales performance in some other part of the world," he says.

But when these companies' credits run out - the taxman will be waiting for his due.

Eight States Where The 2nd Amendment Is Your Concealed Carry Permit

Eight States Where The 2nd Amendment Is Your Concealed Carry Permit

Permitless carry is the law of the land in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia

AWR Hawkins | Breitbart - MARCH 7, 2016

There are now eight states in America where no permit is required in order to carry a concealed handgun on one’s person for self-defense, after West Virginia legislators overrode Governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s (D) veto of a permitless carry law.

The West Virginia House overrode Tomblin’s veto on March 4 and the West Virginia Senate followed suit on March 5. WSAZ 3 reports that permitless carry “becomes law” 90 days from date of veto override.

This means there are now eight states where the Second Amendment is the only carry permit required.

It is important to note that there are still various rules that need to be learned and followed–in Montana, for instance, there are requirements for a permit in order to carry concealed in a city setting and many of the states have different rules for residents vs. non-residents–but apart from such caveats, permitless carry is the law of the land in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia.


Alaska: The Alaska Department of Public Safety succinctly explains the state’s concealed carry law, “Alaska’s laws do not prohibit anyone 21 or older who may legally possess a firearm from carrying it concealed. A special permit is not required.” Alaska does have certain prohibitions as to where a concealed carry firearm cannot be possessed, such prohibitions include bars but differentiate between restaurants that serve alcohol and actual bars. The prohibitions also include private property where permission to carry is denied. The full list of prohibitions can be viewed here.

Arizona: Arizona’s carry laws are very similar to Alaska’s. If you are 21-year-old or older and are not barred from gun possession then you can legally carry a concealed handgun for self-defense without a permit. There are restrictions, one of which is a prohibition on carrying into “businesses serving alcohol for consumption on the premises.” You can carry in a such a business if you have an Arizona concealed carry permit, but such locations are off limits otherwise. The Arizona Department Public Safety lists other restrictions.

Kansas: Permitless concealed-carry became the law of the land in Kansas on July 1, 2015. Since that time the Kansas Attorney General’s website says, “A Concealed Carry Handgun license from Kansas or any other jurisdiction is no longer required in order to carry concealed firearms in Kansas for most individuals. So long as the person is 21 or older and lawful to possess firearms.” The Kansas Attorney General’s website also contains specifics on restrictions pertaining to concealed carry in the state.

Maine: Permitless concealed-carry became the law of the land in Maine on October 15, 2015. Maine.gov expounds: “Concealed carry without a permit is limited to people who are 21 or older, with the following exception: If a person is 18 years of age or older, and is on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, or has been honorably discharged from the Armed Forces or the National Guard, and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm, the person may carry a concealed handgun. ” Other restrictions tied to concealed carry can be found on Maine.gov.

Montana: According to the Montana Department of Justice, “You may carry a concealed weapon without a permit if you are outside the official boundaries of a city or town or the confines of a logging, lumbering, mining or railroad camp.” However, carrying concealed without a license is not permitted in municipal areas. The details on the restrictions for carry in municipal areas can be found on the Montana Department of Justice website.

Vermont: Carrying a concealed handgun for self-defense without a permit is lawful in Vermont. According to the NRA-ILA, “It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man. It is unlawful to carry a firearm within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased by such institution.” As with other states that recognize permitless carry, there are restrictions on where a concealed handgun can be carried–including schools, courthouses, etc. Those who plan to carry concealed in Vermont need to familiarize themselves with all restrictions before do doing.

Wyoming: It became lawful for Wyoming residents to carry a concealed handgun without a permit in 2011. But Wyoming has a number of restrictions differentiating between concealed carry requirements for residents and non-residents, and everyone who plans to carry in Wyoming should familiarize themselves with those restrictions prior to carrying. Smart Gun Laws provides a good starting summary of the Wyoming carry statutes.

West Virginia: The West Virginia House and Senate just overrode Governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s (D) veto of House Bill 4145, sponsored by Delegate Saira Blair (R-Martinsburg). This means the Second Amendment will be soon be recognized as a sufficient carry permit for those 21-years old and older in West Virginia. HB 4145 also lowers the age for acquiring a concealed carry permit to 18-years of age, so that persons 18 to 20 years old can get a permit in order to carry a gun for self-defense prior to turning 21. Those planning to carry without a permit in West Virginia need to keep an eye on emerging information on official websites for the West Virginia government and follow pertinent restrictions.

Free Trade Is The Path To Prosperity

FREE TRADE IS THE PATH TO PROSPERITY

Free trade does not “destroy jobs”

Georgi Vuldzhev | Mises.org - MARCH 7, 2016

The political circus of the 2016 presidential election has revived and reinvigorated popular belief in age-old protectionist fallacies.

Currently both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are both in favor of expanding protectionist trade policy, with both of them arguing that free trade “destroys” jobs and hurts domestic workers and producers by exposing them to foreign competition. Both candidates espouse an utterly misguided zero-sum view of economics, in which one side to an exchange wins only when the other side loses. Both men are, of course, completely wrong.
Free Trade Does Not Destroy Jobs

It is true that greater competition between domestic and foreign workers can lead to a decline in wage rates and possibly unemployment in some sectors of the economy. But this is only a short-term effect. Free competition between foreign and domestic producers also naturally leads to lower prices for the goods and services which can now be freely imported from abroad. So, while nominal wage rates are pushed down in some sectors, real wage rates rise overall for everyone in the economy because of the decline in prices.


Thanks to free trade consumers spend less money on certain goods and services and this allows them to spend more money on others, which leads to rising demand and thus profits in the sectors providing the latter, and consequently leads also to more investment by entrepreneurs. This higher rate of investment naturally leads to the creation of more jobs in these sectors and thus offsets any original rise in unemployment that might have occurred.

Alternatively, the consumers may choose to save the extra disposable income that was freed up by the decline in prices. This rise in the savings rate will lead to a decline in interest rates, which makes profitable certain long-term capital-intensive projects which were not profitable beforehand. Seizing the opportunity presented by this increase in savings, entrepreneurs will start borrowing and investing in those long-term capital intensive projects, which on its own already creates more jobs, but it also leads to a rise in demand for capital goods, which raises profits in the capital goods industries and consequently leads to more investment and job openings in those sectors.
Free Trade Is Win-Win

Free trade not only doesn’t “destroy” jobs, but it also promotes specialization between nations, which improves the efficiency and productivity of workers, and leads to a rise in living standards for all. Trade is not some kind of a zero-sum game in which if one side wins, the other has to lose.

When two countries such as the United States and China, for example, trade freely with one another, their citizens are incentivized to specialize in those lines of production in which they have a comparative advantage. Due to the difference in factors of production endowments it is best for different countries to specialize in producing those types of goods and services which they can produce most efficiently in comparative terms. A higher level of specialization, through the effect of economies of scale, makes production more cost-efficient.

By specializing in a certain line of production and then exchanging the goods and services produced for those that others are specialized in producing, the people of a given country can substantially raise their living standards because the gains in productivity are naturally followed by an increasing supply of goods and services and thus rising real incomes. This way free trade allows for the flourishing of what can be called an “international” division of labor. Just like a greater degree of division of labor can lead to big gains in productivity and thus real incomes on anintra-national (i.e., internal for a given country) level it can also do so on an international level.
Protectionism Makes You Poor

When international trade is restricted, for example, by protectionist legislation which places tariffs on certain imports, this process of specialization is hindered and thus the gains in productive efficiency are diminished. By artificially raising the price of imports, tariffs allow otherwise uncompetitive and inefficient domestic businesses to remain in operation. Consumers are forced to pay higher prices for the goods the importation of which is penalized by tariffs, and this effectively constitutes a redistribution of resources from the consumers to the domestic producers.

More importantly, protectionism hinders the process of specialization described in the previous section and thus prevents living standards from rising in the long-term, or worse — it can even lead to their decline. By propping up the profits of comparatively inefficient domestic producers and keeping in business, tariffs prevent the labor shift from those inefficient sectors, to more comparatively efficient ones. Consequently, because this prevents a higher degree of specialization from taking place, or even reverses it, the benefits that specialization leads to cannot be obtained. Productivity does not increase (or at least not to the same degree as it could) and thus real incomes do not rise.

Contrary to the popular political rhetoric nowadays, free trade does not “destroy jobs.” It can only lead to a shift of resources (labor, capital, and other factors) from one comparatively inefficient sector or group of sectors in the domestic economy to another more comparatively efficient one. This process of specialization in the comparatively advantageous lines of production not only does not destroy jobs, but it also enables big gains in efficiency and productivity to take place, which leads to a rise in real incomes. This is how, far from somehow hurting the domestic workers, free trade actually does the opposite — it makes them richer. It is, in fact,protectionism which makes us all poorer, workers included, by artificially propping up inefficient businesses, leading to a misallocation of resources and a decline in standards of living for us all.

The Cashless Society List

The Global ‘War on Cash’: a Country by Country Guide

James Corbett
Corbett Report

Corbett Reporteers will be no stranger to the war on cash. I’ve made videos discussing it, conducted interviews about it, written articlesexamining it and dissected it on the radio.

The war has been waged through mainstream propaganda outlets, TV advertisements and even children’s games.

We’ve heard cash is dirtied by drug dealing, tarnished by terrorism, tainted by tax evasion(heaven forbid!) and just plain dirty. Not to mention sooooo outdated.

Just this week Norway has jumped aboard the cashless society agenda with DNB, the country’s largest bank, calling for a total end to cash. The story only sounds shocking only to people who haven’t heard the similar stories from Sweden or Denmark or India or Israel or any of the dozens of other countries whose banksters and (bankster-controlled) governments have openly lusted after a world of completely trackable, completely bank-controlled transactions.

But all of these stories, reported piecemeal here and there over the years, don’t give the full story about how this “war on cash” is being waged on every continent and in every country by the same banksters that stand to benefit from a cashless world. Let’s fix that by compiling a list of examples from around the world of how cash payments are being regulated, restricted and phased out. The list below will be updated as new stories come in.

If you have a link to relevant news from your own country or know of such news from another country, please let us know. Corbett Report members are invited to contribute to the list by logging in and leaving links to the relevant info in the comments below.

The Cashless Society List

ARGENTINA – Argentina’s currency crisis has been known for some time. In short, Argentinians don’t trust the peso and are willing to pay premium for any currency they perceive as “more stable,” especially US dollars which are traded on the black market as “blue dollars” at prices far exceeding the official exchange rate. That’s why Argentina has been tipped for some time as a country that is likely to go cashless sooner than later, with a 2014 report from the Bitcoin Market Opportunity Index ranking Argentina as the most likely jurisdiction to replace sovereign currency with bitcoin. Argentinians have reason to be wary about this New Monetary Order, however; in a move described as “an eerie glimpse of what a cashless society enables” the Argentinian government mandated that banks report every credit card purchase made in the country directly to the tax authorities and added a 15 percent tax surcharge every time a purchase is made outside the country using a credit card issued by an Argentine bank.

AUSTRALIA – Late last year the Westpac banking group issued a “Cash Free Report” touting the highly self-serving finding that “Over half (53 per cent) of payments currently made in Australia are cashless” (using Westpac online banking services like their cardless ATMs, no doubt). The report goes on to predict that Australia will be cash free by 2022. Meanwhile, the government is readying a cashless welfare system that will allow the government to control what the money is spent on. What could possibly go wrong?

BELGIUM – In 2014 the Belgian government passed new restrictions on cash payments: cash can no longer be used to pay for real estate, and there is a 3000 euro limit on cash payments for other assets (unless purchase second hand).

CANADA – In 2007 the Canadian government stopped allowing payment of taxes in cash at government service centers. In 2010 Passport Canada followed suit. In 2011 56% of Canadians polled said they were happy to live in a bankster-controlled cashless society so the country killed the penny in 2012 and the Royal Canadian Mint started pimping the “MintChip” as a new form of electronic payment that will be “better than cash.” The Mint ended the program in 2014 but the Great White North is still on track to be a cashless society in the coming years.

CHINA – The People’s Bank of China, citing the need to “reduce costs, curb crimes and money laundry, facilitate transactions and boost central bank’s control on money supply and circulation” set up a research team in 2014 “to study application scenarios for digital currency and strive for an early rollout.”

DENMARK – In the 1990s about 80% of Danish retail purchases were made with cash, but these days it’s more like 25%. But if the Danish government has its way, that number will be 0% by 2030. That’s the year the Danish government has set for the complete elimination of paper money in Denmark.

ECUADOR – Last year Ecuador became the first government to launch a digital currencycompletely administered and controlled by a central bank. Called the Dinero Electronico, the currency can be purchased with cash, stored in electronic wallets on a phone, and can be exchanged by text message.

EU – The head of the EU Anti-Fraud Office Giovanni Kessler, came out earlier this year to call for abolishing the 500 euro note because they “can make the life of fraudsters much easier.” He also noted that a more widespread adoption of electronic payment systems would be better for his office because “Traceability is paramount in fighting corruption and fraud.”

FRANCE – In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks last year, the French government stepped up its war on cash. In March of last year, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin declared it necessary to “fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy” in order to combat “low-cost terrorism.” As of September 2015 it is illegal for French citizens to make purchases exceeding 1000 euros in cash.

GERMANY – In a rather abrupt turnaround from a 2014 Bundesbank paper on “The Irreplaceability of Cash,” the German Finance Ministry (perhaps egged on by the country’s leading Keynesian economist) is looking into a 5000 euro cap on all cash payments. And although Germany is still a cash-based society, things are changing; a 2014 survey found that 34% of the population makes purchases electronically already and 20% can envision making all their purchases via smartphone payment systems in the future.

HONG KONG – When it launched in 1997, the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway’s Octopus Cardwas just the second contactless smart card system in the world (after South Korea’s UPass). Although originally used to pay for journeys on public transit, it can now be used at convenience stores, vending machines, supermarkets, photo booths and other retail outlets. In 2004 all metered parking spaces in Hong Kong were converted to cashless meters that required Octopus Cards for payment.

INDIA – India is one of the most cash-dependent economies in the world with a cash-to-GDP ratio of 12%, almost four times that of fellow BRICS nations Brazil and South Africa. But it won’t be for long if the Indian government has its way. Last June the Indian Ministry of Finance posted a draft proposal to its website for facilitating the rise of cashless payments in the country. In his 2015 budget speech the Finance Minister declared: “One way to curb the flow of black money is to discourage transactions in cash. Now that a majority of Indians has or can have, a RUPAY debit card. I therefore, proposes to introduce soon several measure that will incentivize credit or debit card transactions and disincentivize cash transaction.”

IRELAND – A 2013 paper from the Central Bank of Ireland lamented Ireland’s slow adoption of electronic payments and over-reliance on cheques, noting “Ireland could save up to €1bn per year by migrating to more efficient [i.e. electronic] payment instruments.” Later that year, the Central Bank launched a National Payments plan to help facilitate the transition and kicked off a €1m national marketing campaign to encourage the migration to electronic payments. The scale of the campaign surprised many, with the Irish Independent pointing out that “It’s a major advertising spend in the current climate, where a big-promotion budget spend is considered to be in the region of €500,000 outside of the big global blue-chips.” Late last year the Cork City Centre Forum attempted to take the lead in the cashless transition by launching the “Cork Cash Out” campaign aiming “to encourage consumers to ween off cash and opt-in for electronic-only transactions instead.”

ISRAEL – In 2014 a special committee headed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Chief of Staff Harel Locker released a report examining how to reduce the use of cash in the country. The report advocates reforms (including restrictions and limits on cash transactions) as part of a strategy whose aim is “reduced use of cash, reduced use of endorsed checks, and increased use of electronic means of payment.”

ITALY – In 2011 newly appointed Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti made cash payments over 1000 euro illegal. “What we need is a revolution in Italians’ thinking” Monti told reporters as he announced the emergency decree which was put into law before it was even formally voted on in parliament.

KENYA – Last year the Kenyan government awarded a contract to MasterCard to administer a smart card that can be used to pay for government services and receive welfare payments. Anne Waiguru of the Ministry of Devolution and Planning explained: “Uwezo Fund beneficiaries, Youth and Women Funds disbursements, National Youth Service, Social welfare government cash transfers to families, government food subsidies, hunger safety net cash transfers and cash transfers to orphaned children will be disbursed through the cards,” neglecting to add that the card also gives MasterCard access to the biometric details of 170 million potential customers.

MEXICO – In 2013 the Mexican government banned cash payments of more than 500,000 pesos for real estate and more than 200,000 pesos for cars, jewelry or lottery tickets.

NETHERLANDS – In 2013 the mayors of Almere, Rotterdam and Maastricht engaged in a publicity stunt to promote a campaign encouraging the public to abandon cash. They spent a week without spending any cash, relying solely on debit cards for purchases. The campaign is part of a long term trend away from cash and toward debit payments in many supermakets and other businesses around the country.

NORWAY – Late last week Trond Bentestuen, a senior executive at Norway’s largest bank, complained to the VG Newspaper that the Norwegian central bank “can only account for 40 percent” of the Norwegian kroner in circulation, meaning “that 60 percent of money usage is outside of any control.” There’s only one conclusion, according to Bentestuen: “There are so many dangers and disadvantages associated with cash, we have concluded that it should be phased out.” Don’t worry, though, the nation’s Finance Ministry says it has “no plans to change the law in this area”…for now.

PHILIPPINES – In the Phillippines, the government has launched an “E-Peso” project with the explicit aim of “transforming communities into cashless societies.” Touted as “a digital/virtual currency based on the Philippine Peso” its main selling point (according to the E-Peso’s own website) is that: “Since E-Peso transactions are completely digital, everything will automatically be recorded onto the customer’s account activity log.” The initiative is funded by infamous CIA front USAID, which “has awarded a US$25-million, five-year project to a company called Chemonics to support the Philippine government in the promotion and adoption of e-payments in the Philippines.”

SAUDI ARABIA – A MasterCard report on “The Cashless Journey” noted that by increasing the share of debit card transactions in the economy between 2006 and 2011, Saudi Arabia was moving at a faster than average pace toward a cashless society. Commenting on the report, Khalid Hariry of MasterCard noted: “Saudi Arabia is indeed moving at a better than average pace on its cashless journey, which has been significantly spurred along by government leadership. Regulation mandating wages assignment of employees’ to bank accounts has vastly increased access to electronic payment methods for the Saudi population over a short period of time. These changes, coming alongside initiatives to spur acceptance, and a push to migrate payments made during the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages, can be expected to shift substantial share of consumer payments away from cash in the coming years.”

SPAIN – Citing budgetary austerity and the need to clamp down on tax fraud the Spanish government banned cash payments of more than 2,500 euros in 2012.

SWEDEN – Last year Stockholm’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology released a report stating that the country is on track to completely eliminating cash transactions in the foreseeable future. Noting that there are now only 80 billion Swedish crowns in circulation in the economy (down from 106 just six years ago), the report highlights how digital person-to-person payment technology “Swish” (developed in collaboration with Danish banks) is already transforming the country’s banking sector, where there are now entire banks that do not accept cash. Meanwhile, the Swedish public is being urged to stop using cash by no less a cultural icon than ABBA’s Björn Ulveaus, who brags that the ABBA museum is now a cashless institution.

URUGUAY – Under the “Financial Inclusion Law” which took effect in May 2015 the Uruguayan government has banned all cash payments over $5,000, thus requiring all property and vehicle purchases to go through the banking system. This is part of a wave of such legislation throughout Latin America hailed as a way of “giving the people what they need” (i.e. access to banking) even when (as the very same report notes) “those on the edges of the financial system are distrustful of banks” especially in Uruguay.

UK – In 2014 cashless payments surpassed cash payments for the first time in the UK, with research (from cashless payment provider Kalixo Pro) suggesting that the average Brit only carries £17.79 in cash at any time and 1 in 4 will walk away if a business doesn’t accept card payment. London buses went cashless in 2014 and just last year the Bank of England’s chief economist made the case for negative interest rates and abolishing cash.

Turkey Keeps Shelling Kurds

TURKEY KEEPS SHELLING KURDS, BACKING TERRORIST GROUPS IN SYRIA – RUSSIA

Militants continue to freely cross the Turkish-Syrian border

RT - MARCH 5, 2016

Turkey continues to shell Kurdish forces in Syria, hampering their operations against Al-Nusra terrorists, and at the same time funneling supplies to the militant-controlled areas at the border, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.

Ankara bears responsibility for the ongoing ceasefire violations in the Syrian provinces of Idlib and Aleppo, the head of the Russian ceasefire monitoring center Lt. Gen. Sergey Kuralenko told journalists at a briefing on March 4.

Militants continue to freely cross the Turkish-Syrian border, Kuralenko noted, presenting the latest reconnaissance video featuring a “large terrorist unit in a forested border area.”


Another video depicted Turkish artillery in a border garrison near the Yanankey settlement targeting Kurdish positions in Syria.

“Artillery shelling of Kurdish militia units, fighting against Nusra Front, continues from the territory of a Turkish border post near Yanankey,” Kuralenko said.

Lt. Gen. also noted that in footage captured by an RT crew who traveled with the Kurdish YPG force in the area, Turkish trucks crossed the Turkish-Syrian border, according to Kuralenko. He said they are carrying supplies and arms exclusively to the territories controlled by Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar ash-Sham terrorist groups.

Turkish activities in the region are undermining the ceasefire and crippling the efforts aimed at launching the inter-Syrian dialogue and bringing peace to Syria, the defense ministry spokesman reiterated.

The ceasefire regime in Syria is being monitored and promoted via special centers set up in Moscow, Washington, Amman and Latakia and Geneva to collect and review information. The Russian center has registered 27 breaches of the ceasefire regime over the last 24 hours, with most of them – eight breaches – occurring in Aleppo, the Defense Ministry reported on Friday. The province of Idlib has seen a total of 7 violations, Damascus and Homs – 4 in each, Daraa – 3, Latakia – 1.

Besides Damascus, almost 100 various armed groups operating in Syria, alongside different regional and international interested parties, have agreed to take part in ceasefire, according to UN Syria special envoy Staffan de Mistura. The groups that don’t obey the ceasefire, including but not limited to ISIS and Al-Nusra, are considered terrorists.

Five more commanders of so-called Syria’s moderate opposition groups agreed to take part in the ceasefire along with the elders of two settlements in the province of Homs just recently, according to the ministry’s statement. Leaders of four other groups may soon join the agreement.

The nationwide ceasefire was implemented on February, 27 at midnight Damascus time. Outlined by the co-chairs of the ISSG (the International Syrian Support Group) US and Russia, it was supported by the United Nations Security Council and is abiding to all parties involved in the conflict. The exceptions are Islamic State group (IS, formely ISIS/ISIL), Al-Nusra, and “other terrorist organizations” as designated by the UN Security Council.