investmentwatchblog--2020-04-18--Taibbi Warns: Wall Street & Main Street ‘Rescues’ Look Increasingly Disconnected From One Another

It ’ s early days , but the Federal Reserve “ bazooka ” has mostly impacted the 1 % … Take a look at some contrasting sets of headlines .
As we head into the second month of pandemic lockdown , two parallel narratives are developing about the financial rescue .
In one , ordinary people receive aid through programs that are piecemeal , complex , and riddled with conditions .
A law freezing evictions applies to holders of government-backed mortgages only .
“ Disaster grants ” are coming more slowly and in smaller amounts than expected ; small businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early last week that aid would be limited to $ 1000 per employee .
A one-time “ economic impact payment , ” reportedly delayed so recipients could experience the thrilling visual of Donald Trump ’ s name on the check , might help make half a rent payment .
Unemployment insurance amounts have been raised , so tip and gig workers can now be ineligible for $ 600 a week more than before !
The cost of a coronavirus test might be free , but you test positive , you could up paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even with insurance .
And so on .
Meanwhile , “ relief ” programs aimed at the top income levels were immediate , staggering in size and scope , and often appeared as grants rather than loans .
One of the biggest layouts of the Covid-19 rescue was a political carrying charge that members of congress extracted just to get the larger bailout out the door – a pre-bailout bailout , if you will .
Although the $ 2 trillion coronavirus rescue was approved unanimously , a set of tax breaks was stuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of the CARES Act put forward by Mitch McConnell .
When Donald Trump signed his whopper Tax Cuts and Jobs Act two years ago , the bill contained clauses to offset the loss of revenue that would entail from shaving down the top individual tax rate relatively a little ( from 39.6 % to 37 % ) and slashing the corporate tax rate a lot ( from 35 % all the way down to 21 % ) .
One of those changes limited the amount of losses that could be used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another limited the amount of losses from so-called “ pass-through ” businesses ( i.e .
businesses that don ’ t pay corporate taxes ) that wealthy individuals could use to offset taxable income .
These provisions particularly impacted real estate developers ( ! )
, hedge fund managers , and other high net worth individuals with volatile revenue profiles .
The second provision only affected people making at least $ 250,000 , or couples earning at least $ 500,000 .
The CARES Act sought to wipe out or alter both provisions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for multinationals who offshore profits , but that provision was stripped out in favor of these first two loopholes , seemingly reflecting their importance to the caucus .
As Steve Wamhoff of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy points out , the changes on the use of “ pass-through ” losses only benefit a select group .
“ It has to be stressed that this exclusively helps wealthy people , ” Wamhoff says .
“ It only has an impact on people already making over $ 250,000.
” Because the CARES Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t have all of the information they might have wanted before the vote .
After the bill passed , Democratic staffers sent these tax provisions in the CARES Act , sections 2303 and 2304 , to the Joint Committee on Taxation , to be scored .
They were stunned to learn they would cost $ 195 billion over ten years .
In other words , what seemed like a run-of-the-mill offhand legislative pork provision ended up dwarfing the airline bailout and other main parts of the bill .
The JCT analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bill went to just 43,000 taxpayers each earning over $ 1 million a year .
The average tax break for those 43,000 individuals was $ 1.6 million , an interesting number when one considers the loudness of the controversy over $ 1,200 relief checks for everyone else .
Doggett joined Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in sending a letter to the Trump administration , demanding to know the provenance of these tax breaks .
“ This irresponsible provision must be repealed , ” he says .
It ’ s possible we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was to insert those breaks .
By then , however , other windfalls from the Covid-19 rescue might have rendered the $ 195 billion bailout appetizer quaint .
With the Fed ’ s announcement on April 9th of a $ 2.3 trillion program that includes purchases of junk bonds , the toolkit for support of the financial economy now encompasses nearly every conceivable official response apart from subsidy of stock markets .
The sheer quantity of money raining down on the finance sector appears transformational , a “ joyful noise ” heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the bailout tools it used in response to the 2008 crisis at the end of March .
These were radical enough , but still confined to the finance version of safe sex : buying investment grade debt , U.S. treasuries , government-backed mortgages , etc .
On April 9th , the Fed took a walk on the wild side , announcing a spate of new facilities that dramatically expand its footprint in the economy .
Some programs are less controversial , like a Municipal Liquidity Facility providing aid to states and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fallen angel ” companies with declining credit ratings , longshot problem horses at the global racetrack .
As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it in awed tones , “ the Fed will in effect buy the worst shopping malls in the country and some of the most indebted companies.
” The WSJ went on to dissect the logic of the bailout ( emphasis mine ) : The coronavirus rescue is a “ trickle-down ” plan .
Many of the Fed programs don ’ t appear even secondarily concerned with maintaining employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hurl money at “ assets , ” underscoring the bizarre dualistic nature of this rescue .
If the ordinary person during the crisis dreams of being relieved from market stresses like housing and medical costs , only to receive ( at best ) one $ 1200 check , it ’ s Wall Street actors who are seeing the tyranny of markets fundamentally overthrown , replaced by a giant financial happy face called the Federal Reserve that appears to want to simulate real buying and selling , only with the downside removed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanley of Americans for Financial Reform puts it , “ the Fed ’ s perspective on this is , they want to create normalcy ” in financial markets .
What “ normalcy ” means , however , at a moment when many businesses are closed or careening toward bankruptcy , is not clear .
This heads-I-win , tails-the-Fed-loses economy is resulting in win after win across the financial sector , some more malodorous than others .
It ’ s hard to know what is ordinary front-running of this type and what is sincere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s new “ limitless ” purchasing power .
Investors are now chasing Fed decisions with seemingly real zeal , causing private money to flow directly into the very risk-laden sectors of the economy they probably would be fleeing absent government intervention .
In one of many hallucinatory headlines from this week , the head of the global allocation team for BlackRock – the company that ’ s administering Fed buying programs – said his company would henceforth be betting on the Fed ’ s bets .
“ We will follow the Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they ’ re purchasing , and assets that rhyme with those , ” said BlackRock ’ s Rick Rieder .
Other companies are employing the same strategy .
“ The stimulus seems to be endless , ” said Dirk Thiels of KBC Asset Management in Brussels .
“ Buy what the central bank has been buying and in the short-term it ’ ll be a good strategy.
” It ’ s one thing for the Fed to step in and help important companies that have been unduly damaged by coronavirus , firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to junk in late March ( but which is eligible for support under the Fed programs announced on April 9th ) .
It ’ s another thing for the Fed to create fresh bull markets around its own investments in the debt of basket-case companies , especially since it ’ s not clear how , say , the continuous propping up of junk bond Exchange-Traded Funds ( ETFs ) addresses issues like unemployment , or anything else for that matter .
Brian Chappatta of Bloomberg added a similar criticism this week , asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchases help Americans get jobs or pay rent ?
” The Bank of England last summer identified the state of such “ open-ended funds ” as a potential systemic problem : The Bank added , “ the mismatch between the liquidity of a fund ’ s assets and its redemption terms can create incentives for investors to withdraw funds ahead of other investors.
” It went on to say that under a “ severe but plausible set of assumptions , ” there could be a rush of redemption requests that could “ overwhelm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales , ” causing “ market dysfunction.
” This is a fancy way of saying that investment banks and asset managers have been making big bucks trading collections of longer-term , potentially hard-to-sell corporate bonds as highly liquid and relatively safe products .
In a crisis , the Bank of England warned , these would suddenly be hard to sell , at which point the possible underlying dogshit-ness of these debt instruments might be exposed , causing further market panic .
When the Covid-19 crisis hit , exactly this “ severe ” scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world ’ s biggest corporate bond funds plummeted in value , and buyers were suddenly scarce .
A $ 30 billion bond fund managed by ( again ) BlackRock , the iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF or “ LQD , ” went into freefall , only to rebound spectacularly once the Fed announced its first bond-buying program ( managed by Black Rock , of course ) in late March .
“ A $ 33 billion ETF sees most cash in 18 years on Fed-fueled rally , ” read the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LQD at this writing is up 23.7 % since the Fed announced its bond-buying program .
Another troubled BlackRock fund , the $ 15.8 billion HYG – the world ’ s largest junk bond fund – now looks like an ascendant product as well .
All of these issues come on top of others inherent with the Fed programs .
As Stanley ’ s Americans for Financial Reform has pointed out : Again , there are some restrictions in parts of the CARES Act , and in some of the Fed programs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , executive bonuses , and other issue .
But the bond purchasing programs in particular have few restrictions on executive compensation , on buybacks , on layoffs or offshoring of labor , on payments to private equity owners , etc .
There isn ’ t much point in restricting the spending of bailout money on handouts with one hand , if you can do it freely with the other hand , yet this is how the coronavirus rescue is structured .
This is in addition to the near-total lack of oversight .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Congressional Oversight Commission with purview over these programs is former adviser to Elizabeth Warren , Bharat Ramamurti .
Ramamurti has no staff , no office , nothing except — this is not a joke — a Twitter account .
I asked him if more resources had come his way since early Swiftian news stories identified him as a quixotic “ lone ” regulator attempting to watch and oversee trillions in spending by himself Ramamurti has however sent Fed chair Jerome Powell a letter , “ to respectfully request that the Federal Reserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each individual transaction ” made under the new lending programs .
Remember , much of the Fed ’ s rescue lending is backed by Treasury dollars , which means the taxpayer is eating what otherwise would have been the market risk of many of its investments .
However , the Fed has shown no inclination to release any information about its activities .
Thus this is a brave new world not just in terms of economics , but also oversight .
Essentially , the spending of huge amounts of taxpayer money has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about disclosure suck even worse than those of congress .
It ’ s early , but the Main Street and Wall Street rescues are looking increasingly disconnected from one another .
One looks like it doesn ’ t work , while the other might work way too well .
If only we could see enough to know for sure .

Authored by Matt Taibbi,
It’s early days, but the Federal Reserve “bazooka” has mostly impacted the 1%…
Take a look at some contrasting sets of headlines.
First, from planet earth:
Weekly Jobless Claims Hit 5.425 Million, Raising Monthly Loss To 22 Million Due To Coronavirus (CNBC) Worst Case Fears Of 20%-Plus U.S. Jobless Rate Are Now Realistic (Bloomberg)
Then from Wall Street:
Private Equity-Owned Companies Sell New Bonds in Credit Rally (Bloomberg Law) Fed’s Historic Move Spurs Rally in Junk Bonds: 6 ETF Picks (Nasdaq.com)
As we head into the second month of pandemic lockdown, two parallel narratives are developing about the financial rescue.
In one, ordinary people receive aid through programs that are piecemeal, complex, and riddled with conditions.
A law freezing evictions applies to holders of government-backed mortgages only. “Disaster grants” are coming more slowly and in smaller amounts than expected; small businesses were disappointed to learn from the SBA early last week that aid would be limited to $1000 per employee.
A one-time “economic impact payment,” reportedly delayed so recipients could experience the thrilling visual of Donald Trump’s name on the check, might help make half a rent payment. Unemployment insurance amounts have been raised, so tip and gig workers can now be ineligible for $600 a week more than before! The cost of a coronavirus test might be free, but you test positive, you could up paying $50,000 or more in hospital costs even with insurance. And so on.
Meanwhile, “relief” programs aimed at the top income levels were immediate, staggering in size and scope, and often appeared as grants rather than loans. One of the biggest layouts of the Covid-19 rescue was a political carrying charge that members of congress extracted just to get the larger bailout out the door – a pre-bailout bailout, if you will.
Although the $2 trillion coronavirus rescue was approved unanimously, a set of tax breaks was stuck in by Republicans, in the original version of the CARES Act put forward by Mitch McConnell.
When Donald Trump signed his whopper Tax Cuts and Jobs Act two years ago, the bill contained clauses to offset the loss of revenue that would entail from shaving down the top individual tax rate relatively a little (from 39.6% to 37%) and slashing the corporate tax rate a lot (from 35% all the way down to 21%).
One of those changes limited the amount of losses that could be used to offset taxable income in any given year. Another limited the amount of losses from so-called “pass-through” businesses (i.e. businesses that don’t pay corporate taxes) that wealthy individuals could use to offset taxable income. These provisions particularly impacted real estate developers (!), hedge fund managers, and other high net worth individuals with volatile revenue profiles.
The second provision only affected people making at least $250,000, or couples earning at least $500,000.
The CARES Act sought to wipe out or alter both provisions. Republicans also tried to include tax relief for multinationals who offshore profits, but that provision was stripped out in favor of these first two loopholes, seemingly reflecting their importance to the caucus.
As Steve Wamhoff of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy points out, the changes on the use of “pass-through” losses only benefit a select group. “It has to be stressed that this exclusively helps wealthy people,” Wamhoff says. “It only has an impact on people already making over $250,000.”
Because the CARES Act was rushed to the floor, members didn’t have all of the information they might have wanted before the vote. After the bill passed, Democratic staffers sent these tax provisions in the CARES Act, sections 2303 and 2304, to the Joint Committee on Taxation, to be scored. They were stunned to learn they would cost $195 billion over ten years.
In other words, what seemed like a run-of-the-mill offhand legislative pork provision ended up dwarfing the airline bailout and other main parts of the bill.
“The cost of caring for this small slice of the wealthiest one percent is greater than the CARES Act funded for all hospitals in America,” says Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett. “It’s greater than CARES provided for all state and local governments.”
The JCT analysis found that 80% of the benefit of the bill went to just 43,000 taxpayers each earning over $1 million a year. The average tax break for those 43,000 individuals was $1.6 million, an interesting number when one considers the loudness of the controversy over $1,200 relief checks for everyone else.
Doggett joined Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in sending a letter to the Trump administration, demanding to know the provenance of these tax breaks. “This irresponsible provision must be repealed,” he says. It’s possible we’ll find out someday whose idea it was to insert those breaks. By then, however, other windfalls from the Covid-19 rescue might have rendered the $195 billion bailout appetizer quaint.
With the Fed’s announcement on April 9th of a $2.3 trillion program that includes purchases of junk bonds, the toolkit for support of the financial economy now encompasses nearly every conceivable official response apart from subsidy of stock markets. The sheer quantity of money raining down on the finance sector appears transformational, a “joyful noise” heard around the world.
“POW!#* @ BAM&$# SMASH! @#$% KABOOM*#!@?% That’s the sound of the Fed’s big bazooka,” reads Forbes in a typical financial news report.
The Fed deployed many of the bailout tools it used in response to the 2008 crisis at the end of March. These were radical enough, but still confined to the finance version of safe sex: buying investment grade debt, U.S. treasuries, government-backed mortgages, etc.
On April 9th, the Fed took a walk on the wild side, announcing a spate of new facilities that dramatically expand its footprint in the economy.
Some programs are less controversial, like a Municipal Liquidity Facility providing aid to states and localities.
Others however steer money to “fallen angel”companies with declining credit ratings, longshot problem horses at the global racetrack. As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it in awed tones, “the Fed will in effect buy the worst shopping malls in the country and some of the most indebted companies.”
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
The WSJ went on to dissect the logic of the bailout (emphasis mine):
The Fed may feel all of this is essential to protect the financial system’s plumbing and reduce systemic risk until the virus crisis passes, but make no mistake that the Fed is protecting Wall Street first. The goal seems to be to lift asset prices, as the Fed did after the financial panic, and hope that the wealth effect filters down to the rest of the economy.
The coronavirus rescue is a “trickle-down” plan. Many of the Fed programs don’t appear even secondarily concerned with maintaining employment. The basic idea instead has been to hurl money at “assets,” underscoring the bizarre dualistic nature of this rescue.
If the ordinary person during the crisis dreams of being relieved from market stresses like housing and medical costs, only to receive (at best) one $1200 check, it’s Wall Street actors who are seeing the tyranny of markets fundamentally overthrown, replaced by a giant financial happy face called the Federal Reserve that appears to want to simulate real buying and selling, only with the downside removed. Party on, Wayne!
As Marcus Stanley of Americans for Financial Reform puts it, “the Fed’s perspective on this is, they want to create normalcy” in financial markets. What “normalcy” means, however, at a moment when many businesses are closed or careening toward bankruptcy, is not clear. This heads-I-win, tails-the-Fed-loses economy is resulting in win after win across the financial sector, some more malodorous than others.
In late March, for instance, Citigroup bought nearly $2 billion of AAA-rated securitized commercial loans from PGIM, the investment management business of Prudential, at roughly 90 cents on the dollar. According to Bloomberg, Citi then turned right around and sold those bonds to the Fed’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility at “closer to par,” i.e. nearer to 100 cents on the dollar, a nearly instant $100 million windfall. The reader should be able to do the math on who knew what, and when, in that story.
It’s hard to know what is ordinary front-running of this type and what is sincere worship at the altar of the Fed’s new “limitless” purchasing power. Investors are now chasing Fed decisions with seemingly real zeal, causing private money to flow directly into the very risk-laden sectors of the economy they probably would be fleeing absent government intervention.
In one of many hallucinatory headlines from this week, the head of the global allocation team for BlackRock – the company that’s administering Fed buying programs – said his company would henceforth be betting on the Fed’s bets.
“We will follow the Fed and other DM central banks by purchasing what they’re purchasing, and assets that rhyme with those,” said BlackRock’s Rick Rieder.
Other companies are employing the same strategy. “The stimulus seems to be endless,” said Dirk Thiels of KBC Asset Management in Brussels. “Buy what the central bank has been buying and in the short-term it’ll be a good strategy.”
It’s one thing for the Fed to step in and help important companies that have been unduly damaged by coronavirus, firms like Ford, whose debt was downgraded to junk in late March (but which is eligible for support under the Fed programs announced on April 9th).
It’s another thing for the Fed to create fresh bull markets around its own investments in the debt of basket-case companies, especially since it’s not clear how, say, the continuous propping up of junk bond Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) addresses issues like unemployment, or anything else for that matter.
“These financial bailouts are unconnected to any real-world crisis strategy,” is how one market analyst puts it.
Brian Chappatta of Bloomberg added a similar criticism this week, asking, “How exactly do high-yield ETF purchases help Americans get jobs or pay rent?”
The Bank of England last summer identified the state of such “open-ended funds” as a potential systemic problem:
More than US$30 trillion of global assets are now held in open‑ended funds that offer short‑term redemptions while investing in longer‑dated and potentially illiquid assets, such as corporate bonds…
The Bank added, “the mismatch between the liquidity of a fund’s assets and its redemption terms can create incentives for investors to withdraw funds ahead of other investors.”
It went on to say that under a “severe but plausible set of assumptions,” there could be a rush of redemption requests that could “overwhelm the capacity of dealers to absorb those sales,” causing “market dysfunction.”
This is a fancy way of saying that investment banks and asset managers have been making big bucks trading collections of longer-term, potentially hard-to-sell corporate bonds as highly liquid and relatively safe products. In a crisis, the Bank of England warned, these would suddenly be hard to sell, at which point the possible underlying dogshit-ness of these debt instruments might be exposed, causing further market panic.
When the Covid-19 crisis hit, exactly this “severe” scenario seemed to take place. Several of the world’s biggest corporate bond funds plummeted in value, and buyers were suddenly scarce. A $30 billion bond fund managed by (again) BlackRock, the iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF or “LQD,” went into freefall, only to rebound spectacularly once the Fed announced its first bond-buying program (managed by Black Rock, of course) in late March.
“A $33 billion ETF sees most cash in 18 years on Fed-fueled rally,” read the cheery Bloomberg headline on March 25th. LQD at this writing is up 23.7% since the Fed announced its bond-buying program. Another troubled BlackRock fund, the $15.8 billion HYG – the world’s largest junk bond fund – now looks like an ascendant product as well.
All of these issues come on top of others inherent with the Fed programs. As Stanley’s Americans for Financial Reform has pointed out:
… the announced terms for these facilities would seem to permit public financing of leveraged buyouts, public financing of share buybacks to enrich already wealthy executives, public support for corporations that are simultaneously engaged in laying off their workers, and a range of other highly problematic outcomes…
Again, there are some restrictions in parts of the CARES Act, and in some of the Fed programs, that take aim at layoffs, buybacks, executive bonuses, and other issue. But the bond purchasing programs in particular have few restrictions on executive compensation, on buybacks, on layoffs or offshoring of labor, on payments to private equity owners, etc. There isn’t much point in restricting the spending of bailout money on handouts with one hand, if you can do it freely with the other hand, yet this is how the coronavirus rescue is structured.
This is in addition to the near-total lack of oversight. To date, the only person assigned to the Congressional Oversight Commission with purview over these programs is former adviser to Elizabeth Warren, Bharat Ramamurti. Ramamurti has no staff, no office, nothing except — this is not a joke — a Twitter account. I asked him if more resources had come his way since early Swiftian news stories identified him as a quixotic “lone” regulator attempting to watch and oversee trillions in spending by himself
“Nope,” he said.
Ramamurti has however sent Fed chair Jerome Powell a letter, “to respectfully request that the Federal Reserve publicly release detailed and timely information about each individual transaction” made under the new lending programs.
Remember, much of the Fed’s rescue lending is backed by Treasury dollars, which means the taxpayer is eating what otherwise would have been the market risk of many of its investments.
However, the Fed has shown no inclination to release any information about its activities. Thus this is a brave new world not just in terms of economics, but also oversight. Essentially, the spending of huge amounts of taxpayer money has been outsourced to the Fed, whose ideas about disclosure suck even worse than those of congress.
It’s early, but the Main Street and Wall Street rescues are looking increasingly disconnected from one another. One looks like it doesn’t work, while the other might work way too well. If only we could see enough to know for sure.


investmentwatchblog--2020-04-18--The Real Reason Russia Teamed up with China…Here’s What Comes Next for American Preeminence and the

The Real Reason Russia Teamed up with China…Here’s What Comes Next for American Preeminence and the Dollar

Editor ’ s Note : Vladimir Pozner is Russia ’ s most influential political TV talk-show host , journalist and broadcaster .
Pozner has hosted several shows on Russian television , where he has interviewed famous figures such as Hillary Clinton , Alain Delon , President Dimitri Medvedev and Sting .
Pozner has appeared on a wide range of networks , including NBC , CBS , CNN and the BBC .
He has worked as a journalist , editor ( Soviet Life Magazine and Sputnik Magazine ) and TV and radio commentator in a long career covering many major events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Phil Donahue Show and Ted Koppel ’ s Nightline .
He has also worked for the Institute for US and Canadian Studies , a Soviet think tank .
He co-hosted a show with Phil Donahue called Pozner/Donahue .
It was the first televised bi-lateral discussion ( or “ spacebridge ” ) between audiences in the Soviet Union and the US , carried via satellite .
In 1997 , he returned to Moscow as an independent journalist .
Doug Casey ’ s friend Mark Gould sat down with Pozner in Moscow to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US and Russia .
International Man : Do you see a resurging Russia and a restoration of Russian Empire , or simply a national state resurgence ?
Vladimir Pozner : Certainly not .
Russia is not a resurging empire .
There is no way it ’ s ever going to be an empire again .
Empires have this universal feature of disappearing forever , whether it ’ s ancient Rome or whether it ’ s the UK or whatever .
Once it ’ s gone , it ’ s gone .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people have to come to terms with that .
Russia has been an empire since the days of Peter the Great— we ’ re talking about the 18th century .
It is used to being an empire .
The Soviet Union was an empire .
The loss of an empire is painful .
It ’ s like when you lose a leg but have phantom pains—the leg isn ’ t there , but it still hurts .
Well , that ’ s what ’ s going on .
Psychologically , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have a certain degree of nationalism , chauvinism—and it ’ s part of growing out of what you were once upon a time and becoming something else .
Is that happening in Russia ?
Yes .
Is it painful ?
Yes , it ’ s painful .
Is there a deep divide between the older generation and the younger generation ?
There ’ s always a divide , but in this case , a very deep divide .
It ’ s because the older generation is a Soviet generation that was brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to Soviet schools , that was created by a society that no longer exists .
The younger generation grew up in a different kind of place .
It could travel , it has the Internet , it can watch whatever movies , read , whatever books , whatever newspapers , whatever it wants .
It is independent in the way it thinks , as differing from the older generation .
There ‘ s a real divide between the two .
It ‘ s not until the older generation who are in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 , 19 , 20 come to power—that the real changes will begin to occur in this country .
It ‘ s a gradual , very difficult change , but nonetheless , it ‘ s happening .
I can see it .
I travel a lot around Russia , and when I speak the places are packed , and most of the people , much to my surprise and gratification , are under 30 .
To put it bluntly , I ‘ m not young , and yet about 80 % are young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself , why is it ?
What do I say that attracts them ?
What I think it is , they see that I tell the truth .
I don ‘ t beat around the bush , and I ask questions to make them think , not to accept .
I always say , “ Don ’ t accept what you ’ re told .
Think about it ; doubt it ” ; that kind of thing .
International Man : How do Russia ’ s actions , say in the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria or the theoretical pulling of American troops out of the Middle East ?
How do you see Russia vis-à-vis Iran and China ?
Are the days of Pax Americana , indeed , coming to a close ?
Vladimir Pozner : For me , the problem is this : If you have a country like Iraq or Syria , you have local people living there .
What goes on in that country , in my opinion , is strictly their business .
It would be a good thing if no other country felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of another country .
However , that ’ s not the case .
Certain countries have so-called global interests .
The Soviet Union had its global interest .
It had a lot of influence in the Middle East and the surrounding area—which is much closer to it than the United States .
When the Soviet Union disappeared , there was a vacuum .
The United States immediately moved into that area because it had its global interest .
When Russia started coming back in—in the case of Syria—first , the Americans went in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then the Russians came in supporting Assad .
So , what you have is these two countries—plus China , in a different way—trying to further what they consider to be their global interests at the cost of local people .
The local people never asked them to come in the first place .
I totally disagree with the foreign policy of Russia , and in that respect , the foreign policy of the United States as well .
My view would be to keep out .
It ’ s none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their country .
The only reason you go in is that you ’ re stronger than they are .
You don ’ t go into China , for instance , because you don ’ t like the system , and you don ’ t even go into North Korea for a very good reason because you ’ re afraid you ’ ll get a bomb on your capital or something .
This whole idea of global interests , to me , is a profoundly provocative and dangerous idea that can lead to serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally getting out of Afghanistan .
The only reason the US is getting out of Afghanistan is that it didn ’ t succeed in doing anything there .
The Taliban is back .
The Russians fought there for a while , and they also had to get out .
Isn ’ t that a lesson ?
How many times does this have to happen before you understand that well , we may not like what ’ s going on in that country , but it ’ s just none of our business .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases when the United Nations might say we must interfere .
For example , when there is some kind of genocide .
That has to be a decision of the UN , not of the United States or the Russian Federation or the Chinese People ’ s Republic .
It has to be the United Nations—all together unanimously says , yes , we must interfere .
That ’ s legitimate ; otherwise there should be no such things as global interests .
International Man : Russia has been building alternatives to Western-dominated systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from sanctions involving the US financial system , an alternative to the SWIFT system , alternative trade deals with other BRICS countries , the Eurasian Economic Union , and integration with China ’ s New Silk Road program .
What are the implications for this ?
Vladimir Pozner : I ’ m not an economist , and so I prefer not to discuss issues that I don ’ t really know very well .
One thing I will tell you , the turning of Russia towards the East , towards China , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is something that is the result of , first and foremost , the United States making clear that it would not agree to trade with Russia on an equal basis—it would not regard Russia as an equal partner .
In fact , it would employ sanctions to punish Russia .
In a way , it kind of forced Russia to look the other way .
Ultimately , this could lead to some very profound changes in the world situation because if you have a trading block that consists of Russia , China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re really changing the status of the world .
I ’ m very hesitant at this because , after all , I do believe in the importance of the similarities of culture , the similarities of religion .
Although I ’ m an atheist , but nonetheless , I fully understand the implications of coming from a Judeo-Christian past heritage , which is very different from what you will find in the East , be it Confucianism or Muslim or Buddhism or whatever .
I don ’ t think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of deep understanding .
I put it somewhat vaguely , West and East—after all , East is East and West is West , and never the twain shall meet .
In that sense , I think Kipling had an important point .
I don ’ t know where this is going to lead .
I ’ m not particularly fond of that , but again , I place it squarely at the doorstep of the United States .
It ’ s a forced move because if you ’ re told , “ Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with you.
” Then where do you go ?
International Man : Amid the poor relations with the US , Russia has strengthened its relationship with China .
The two countries have increased their economic , military and political ties .
How does this impact US hegemony in the world ?
Vladimir Pozner : I think that the leading factor here is China , not Russia .
China sees itself historically at the center of the world .
Today , it views itself as the fastest-growing powerful nation that , by the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one in every possible respect : militarily , economically , etc .
Russia has a much closer relationship with China , historically , than does the United States .
Russia has a huge border with China , and it is much more dependent on China than the United States is .
I think that the Russian leadership understands the need to create as many positive relations with China as possible , looking down the road as to what ’ s going to happen .
There could have been a US-Russian entente , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the way of Chinese hegemony , but that is not happening .
In the long run , I think what ’ s going to happen is that the big winner is going to be China .
The big losers are going to be Russia and the United States , but perhaps the United States even more than Russia because the Russians are doing a lot to improve relations with China .
The United States is continuously opposing China economically , so on and so forth .
The Chinese have a very long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgetting who was doing what .
I would say that what the United States is doing is very shortsighted vis-a-vis China .
International Man : In a number of your talks or discussions over the past several years , you ’ ve stated your purpose as a journalist of bringing about more understanding between the 2 countries .
Considering the tensions that have arisen in the past 6 years , is there actually a path towards better understanding ?
Vladimir Pozner : I think it ’ s possible , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short term , because for that to happen , there has to be an understanding on both sides—that this is necessary and in the national interest of both countries .
Without that understanding , it ’ s very difficult to achieve anything .
Should that understanding , through a new president let ’ s say , then there are ways to make this happen and to make the attitudes change as rapidly .
One of the grand ideas of course , is for instance , on a yearly basis to exchange , say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 12 to live in the homes of each other—and to go to the schools of each other just for one year , and then go back home .
That in itself would play a stupendous role in changing outlooks or even informing outlooks .
If you did that for 10 years , you ’ d have 100,000 of those , and those are the people who would be able occupy important posts in the future .
Certainly , things like space bridges are quite possible .
Today , I know for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , the Americans are not .
I proposed this to Channel 1 , they said , if the Americans are willing to , we ’ ll do it .
This face to face contact is extremely important in changing attitudes .
We saw that happen back in 1985 .
It could happen again , but the basic underlying thing is an understanding on the part of both sides that this is something we need .
It ’ s good for us .
It ’ s good for others too , but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What I ’ m waiting for , and I don ’ t know whether I ’ ll live long enough for this to happen is for the leadership on both sides to come to this conclusion .
It doesn ’ t mean we ’ re going to fall in love with each other .
It doesn ’ t mean we ’ re going to be close friends .
It means we ’ re going to have , normal relations .
We ’ ll have our differences , but we won ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes the hatred that we harbor .
Therefore , the danger , of being misunderstood and of firing off a few missiles—the atomic clock will no longer be at two minutes to midnight but maybe at 15 minutes to midnight .
That ’ s basically a huge triumph .

Via International Man
Editor’s Note: Vladimir Pozner is Russia’s most influential political TV talk-show host, journalist and broadcaster.
Pozner has hosted several shows on Russian television, where he has interviewed famous figures such as Hillary Clinton, Alain Delon, President Dimitri Medvedev and Sting.
Pozner has appeared on a wide range of networks, including NBC, CBS, CNN and the BBC. He has worked as a journalist, editor (Soviet Life Magazine and Sputnik Magazine) and TV and radio commentator in a long career covering many major events in Russia.
Pozner has appeared on The Phil Donahue Show and Ted Koppel’s Nightline. He has also worked for the Institute for US and Canadian Studies, a Soviet think tank.
He co-hosted a show with Phil Donahue called Pozner/Donahue. It was the first televised bi-lateral discussion (or “spacebridge”) between audiences in the Soviet Union and the US, carried via satellite.
In 1997, he returned to Moscow as an independent journalist.
Doug Casey’s friend Mark Gould sat down with Pozner in Moscow to help us better understand the relationship between the US and Russia.
—
International Man: Do you see a resurging Russia and a restoration of Russian Empire, or simply a national state resurgence?
Vladimir Pozner: Certainly not. Russia is not a resurging empire. There is no way it’s ever going to be an empire again.
Empires have this universal feature of disappearing forever, whether it’s ancient Rome or whether it’s the UK or whatever. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.
It’s not going to come back, and people have to come to terms with that. Russia has been an empire since the days of Peter the Great— we’re talking about the 18th century. It is used to being an empire. The Soviet Union was an empire.
The loss of an empire is painful. It’s like when you lose a leg but have phantom pains—the leg isn’t there, but it still hurts.
Well, that’s what’s going on. Psychologically, it’s difficult to accept. So, you have a certain degree of nationalism, chauvinism—and it’s part of growing out of what you were once upon a time and becoming something else.
Is that happening in Russia? Yes.
Is it painful? Yes, it’s painful. Is there a deep divide between the older generation and the younger generation? There’s always a divide, but in this case, a very deep divide.
It’s because the older generation is a Soviet generation that was brought up in the Soviet Union, that went to Soviet schools, that was created by a society that no longer exists.
The younger generation grew up in a different kind of place. It could travel, it has the Internet, it can watch whatever movies, read, whatever books, whatever newspapers, whatever it wants. It is independent in the way it thinks, as differing from the older generation.
There‘s a real divide between the two. It‘s not until the older generation who are in power today are gone—and those who today are 18, 19, 20 come to power—that the real changes will begin to occur in this country.
It‘s a gradual, very difficult change, but nonetheless, it‘s happening. I can see it.
I travel a lot around Russia, and when I speak the places are packed, and most of the people, much to my surprise and gratification, are under 30. To put it bluntly, I‘m not young, and yet about 80% are young people.
When I‘ve asked myself, why is it? What do I say that attracts them?
What I think it is, they see that I tell the truth.
I don‘t beat around the bush, and I ask questions to make them think, not to accept. I always say, “Don’t accept what you’re told. Think about it; doubt it”; that kind of thing.
International Man: How do Russia’s actions, say in the Middle East, reflect this, for instance in Syria or the theoretical pulling of American troops out of the Middle East?
How do you see Russia vis-à-vis Iran and China? Are the days of Pax Americana, indeed, coming to a close?
Vladimir Pozner: For me, the problem is this: If you have a country like Iraq or Syria, you have local people living there. What goes on in that country, in my opinion, is strictly their business.
It would be a good thing if no other country felt the need to interfere in the business of another country. However, that’s not the case. Certain countries have so-called global interests.
The Soviet Union had its global interest. It had a lot of influence in the Middle East and the surrounding area—which is much closer to it than the United States.
When the Soviet Union disappeared, there was a vacuum. The United States immediately moved into that area because it had its global interest.
When Russia started coming back in—in the case of Syria—first, the Americans went in supporting the opposition to Bashar Al Assad, and then the Russians came in supporting Assad.
So, what you have is these two countries—plus China, in a different way—trying to further what they consider to be their global interests at the cost of local people. The local people never asked them to come in the first place.
I totally disagree with the foreign policy of Russia, and in that respect, the foreign policy of the United States as well. My view would be to keep out. It’s none of your goddamn business. It’s their country.
The only reason you go in is that you’re stronger than they are.
You don’t go into China, for instance, because you don’t like the system, and you don’t even go into North Korea for a very good reason because you’re afraid you’ll get a bomb on your capital or something.
This whole idea of global interests, to me, is a profoundly provocative and dangerous idea that can lead to serious military conflict.
The United States is finally getting out of Afghanistan. The only reason the US is getting out of Afghanistan is that it didn’t succeed in doing anything there. The Taliban is back.
The Russians fought there for a while, and they also had to get out. Isn’t that a lesson?
How many times does this have to happen before you understand that well, we may not like what’s going on in that country, but it’s just none of our business.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
There can be very specific, rare cases when the United Nations might say we must interfere. For example, when there is some kind of genocide. That has to be a decision of the UN, not of the United States or the Russian Federation or the Chinese People’s Republic.
It has to be the United Nations—all together unanimously says, yes, we must interfere.
That’s legitimate; otherwise there should be no such things as global interests.
International Man: Russia has been building alternatives to Western-dominated systems. This includes measures to protect itself from sanctions involving the US financial system, an alternative to the SWIFT system, alternative trade deals with other BRICS countries, the Eurasian Economic Union, and integration with China’s New Silk Road program.
What are the implications for this?
Vladimir Pozner: I’m not an economist, and so I prefer not to discuss issues that I don’t really know very well.
One thing I will tell you, the turning of Russia towards the East, towards China, is not something that was done voluntarily. It is something that is the result of, first and foremost, the United States making clear that it would not agree to trade with Russia on an equal basis—it would not regard Russia as an equal partner.
In fact, it would employ sanctions to punish Russia. In a way, it kind of forced Russia to look the other way.
Ultimately, this could lead to some very profound changes in the world situation because if you have a trading block that consists of Russia, China, India, and the Arab nations, you’re really changing the status of the world.
I’m very hesitant at this because, after all, I do believe in the importance of the similarities of culture, the similarities of religion.
Although I’m an atheist, but nonetheless, I fully understand the implications of coming from a Judeo-Christian past heritage, which is very different from what you will find in the East, be it Confucianism or Muslim or Buddhism or whatever.
I don’t think that there can ever really be the kind of deep understanding.
I put it somewhat vaguely, West and East—after all, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.
In that sense, I think Kipling had an important point. I don’t know where this is going to lead. I’m not particularly fond of that, but again, I place it squarely at the doorstep of the United States.
It’s a forced move because if you’re told, “Well, we were not going to deal with you.” Then where do you go?
International Man: Amid the poor relations with the US, Russia has strengthened its relationship with China. The two countries have increased their economic, military and political ties. How does this impact US hegemony in the world?
Vladimir Pozner: I think that the leading factor here is China, not Russia.
China sees itself historically at the center of the world. Today, it views itself as the fastest-growing powerful nation that, by the middle of this century, will be number one in every possible respect: militarily, economically, etc.
Russia has a much closer relationship with China, historically, than does the United States.
Russia has a huge border with China, and it is much more dependent on China than the United States is.
I think that the Russian leadership understands the need to create as many positive relations with China as possible, looking down the road as to what’s going to happen.
There could have been a US-Russian entente, if you will. That would have stood in the way of Chinese hegemony, but that is not happening.
In the long run, I think what’s going to happen is that the big winner is going to be China. The big losers are going to be Russia and the United States, but perhaps the United States even more than Russia because the Russians are doing a lot to improve relations with China. The United States is continuously opposing China economically, so on and so forth.
The Chinese have a very long memory, and they’re not forgetting who was doing what. I would say that what the United States is doing is very shortsighted vis-a-vis China.
International Man: In a number of your talks or discussions over the past several years, you’ve stated your purpose as a journalist of bringing about more understanding between the 2 countries.
Considering the tensions that have arisen in the past 6 years, is there actually a path towards better understanding?
Vladimir Pozner: I think it’s possible, but it’s hard to imagine that happening in the short term, because for that to happen, there has to be an understanding on both sides—that this is necessary and in the national interest of both countries.
Without that understanding, it’s very difficult to achieve anything. Should that understanding, through a new president let’s say, then there are ways to make this happen and to make the attitudes change as rapidly.
One of the grand ideas of course, is for instance, on a yearly basis to exchange, say 10,000 kids between the ages of 9 and 12 to live in the homes of each other—and to go to the schools of each other just for one year, and then go back home.
That in itself would play a stupendous role in changing outlooks or even informing outlooks. If you did that for 10 years, you’d have 100,000 of those, and those are the people who would be able occupy important posts in the future.
Certainly, things like space bridges are quite possible.
Today, I know for a fact that the Russians are open to it, the Americans are not.
I proposed this to Channel 1, they said, if the Americans are willing to, we’ll do it.
ABC, NBC, CBS—nobody’s interested.
This face to face contact is extremely important in changing attitudes. We saw that happen back in 1985. It could happen again, but the basic underlying thing is an understanding on the part of both sides that this is something we need. It’s good for us. It’s good for others too, but we’re not talking about others.
We’re egoists, it’s good for us.
What I’m waiting for, and I don’t know whether I’ll live long enough for this to happen is for the leadership on both sides to come to this conclusion.
It doesn’t mean we’re going to fall in love with each other. It doesn’t mean we’re going to be close friends. It means we’re going to have, normal relations. We’ll have our differences, but we won’t have the prejudice, the fear, and sometimes the hatred that we harbor.
Therefore, the danger, of being misunderstood and of firing off a few missiles—the atomic clock will no longer be at two minutes to midnight but maybe at 15 minutes to midnight. That’s basically a huge triumph.


investmentwatchblog--2020-04-18--“…consumer confidence doesn’t ‘go gently into the night,’ but rather ‘screaming into the abyss’…”… E

“…consumer confidence doesn’t ‘go gently into the night,’ but rather ‘screaming into the abyss’…”… Earnings held up during the first quarter — it may not last as loan losses mount.

“ …consumer confidence doesn ’ t ‘ go gently into the night , ’ but rather ‘ screaming into the @ @ @ @ @ are just entering into what will likely be a longer , deeper , and more @ @ @ @ @ saw in 2008. Credit conditions and yields spreads are still a long-way from normalized , @ @ @ @ @ likely only in the very early stages .
Liquidity from the Fed has suspended bankruptcies @ @ @ @ @ but the longer this recession/depression drags on , the greater the risk is the Fed @ @ @ @ @ While the Federal Reserve has certainly moved quickly to assist the credit markets in remaining @ @ @ @ @ , those “ emergency measures ” don ’ t translate into stronger economic prosperity , @ @ @ @ @ .
What this all means is there will be no “ V-shaped ” recovery .
@ @ @ @ @ a possibility that “ buying the dip , ” doesn ’ t work this time @

“…consumer confidence doesn’t ‘go gently into the night,’ but rather ‘screaming into the abyss’…”
We are just entering into what will likely be a longer, deeper, and more damaging recession than what we saw in 2008. Credit conditions and yields spreads are still a long-way from normalized, and defaults and bankruptcies are likely only in the very early stages. Liquidity from the Fed has suspended bankruptcies for the time being, but the longer this recession/depression drags on, the greater the risk is the Fed only delayed the inevitable.
While the Federal Reserve has certainly moved quickly to assist the credit markets in remaining operational, as discussed here, those “emergency measures” don’t translate into stronger economic prosperity, revenues, or corporate profits.
What this all means is there will be no “V-shaped” recovery.
It also suggests there is a possibility that “buying the dip,” doesn’t work this time.


investmentwatchblog--2020-04-18--COVID-19 reveals the greatest threat to America

Summary : Recent news stories about COVID-19 reveal much about America .
About us .
They point to the greatest threat we face , and show how we can win .
Fox News : “ Chinese epicenter Wuhan raises number of virus dead by about 50 percent.
” Red emphasis added .
“ China raised Wuhan ’ s coronavirus death toll by nearly 50 percent Friday following weeks of allegations that officials were underreporting the numbers to make the situation there look better than it actually was .
The city where the coronavirus outbreak is believed to have originated is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its previously-announced figure .
Numbers of total cases in the city of 11 million were also raised by 325 to 50,333 , accounting for about two-thirds of China ’ s total 82,367 announced cases .
“ Chinese state media claimed Friday that the reason for the sudden leap was that medical facilities were overwhelmed during the peak of the outbreak and because of that , ‘ belated , missed and mistaken reporting occurred.
’ … ” ’ Due to the insufficiency in admission and treatment capability , a few medical institutions failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control system in time , while hospitals were overloaded and medics were overwhelmed with patients , ’ the official Xinhua News Agency reported , attributing the comments to an unidentified official with Wuhan ’ s epidemic and prevention and control headquarters .
The new figures were compiled through a comparison of data from Wuhan ’ s epidemic prevention and control big data system , the city funeral service system , the municipal hospital authority ’ s information system , and the nucleic acid test system to “ remove double-counted cases and fill in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
… “ ‘ Well , well , well : After repeatedly defending the accuracy of their data , Chinese officials revise the coronavirus death toll in Wuhan , ’ tweeted Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas.
” This is high grade spin !
The “ Chinese state media claimed ” !
A “ mystery ” official said .
This from Fox , whose highly paid stenographers uncritically prints announcements from US government officials who routinely lie on the record about vital matters ( see the Big List of Lies ) – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials without a hint of skepticism ( I have never seen calculations on the rating of lying in these “ leaks ” , but it is probably mind-blowingly high ) .
More evil deeds reported by the Right The Right-wing intertubes burned for days with this news : “ NYC Officials Just Artificially Increased Their COVID Death Total by 57 % ” by Joe Saunders at the Western Journal .
“ If a national catastrophe isn ’ t bad enough , make it worse .
That appears to be the thinking behind a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week that sent the number of dead attributed to the coronavirus outbreak in the city soaring to more than 10,000 — a 57 percent increase over the previous count .
And these are numbers Americans are supposed to trust forevermore .
Unfortunately , in a United States where the mainstream media daily shows itself to be ever more corrupt , trust is in short supply.
” Joe goes on like this for quite a while .
For a more rational report of this news , turn to the NY Times : “ N.Y.C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revised Virus Count.
” “ New York City , already a world epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak , sharply increased its death toll by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday , after officials said they were now including people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have died of it .
… “ The city and the state have at times differed in their counts of the dead in New York City .
As of Monday , the state said that 7,349 had died of the virus in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they are at the whim of the state , which has been slow to share the data it receives from hospitals and nursing homes .
The state Health Department explained on its website that the discrepancy is caused by the city and state using ‘ different data systems.
’ ” Fun fact !
The NYC numbers were increased on April 14 , a city of 8 million increasing its count of fatalities by “ more than 3700.
” On April 17 , China increased its fatality count by 1,290 for a city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase .
But the journalists reporting the story about China had amnesia about the NYC news from three days ago , although that gives important context for the NYC story .
Also note the effect of the large , complex , and often conflicting reporting systems in China and America .
When this causes confusion ( or chaos ) in the US , it is business as usual .
When it happens in China , conservatives growl about those untrustworthy yellow people .
The final numbers for employment and GDP take over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its vast and expensive accounting apparatus .
Expect only unreliable numbers during a pandemic by doctors trying to save lives ( including their own ) , with accounting a lower priority .
Complex phenomena are not counted like apples – whether CPI , GDP , or deaths from COVID-19 .
The definitions and accounting systems for all of these are constantly in motion , changed to reflect new knowledge and new collection systems .
Before test kits were widely available ( January in China , April in the US ) , clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flu .
Shifting to test kits changed the nature of the numbers .
Serological tests are far more sensitive than test kids , and so a larger set of new numbers are coming .
For example , see a CNN story about a new study , and Nature article about these tests .
We will be told that these bigger numbers show that all those experts were lying when they used the kits they had and not the serological tests that were coming in the future !
Trust only us , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a fast track to fame and fortune in a decadent America .
But unless read by a skeptical public , they erode the trust that produces social cohesion .
Strong social cohesion has been one of America ’ s greatest strengths , and allowed us to survive many difficult times .
I fear we no longer have it .
Low trust societies tend to function poorly and collapse under stress .
The most serious threat to America Every society anywhere and across history faces many existential threats .
Natural disasters , foes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which it can not adapt .
Those who warn of these perform a valuable services , for Andy Grove ( the CEO who helped build Intel ) said … I too have written about the many threats to America , and proposed a first step to rationally cope ( see We face so many threats , like pandemics .
Let ’ s prepare . )
– with recognition being the first step .
James Howard Kunstler ’ s new book is a collection of threats : Living in the Long Emergency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ probability and severity .
But the past year has changed my view about our greatest danger , the weak link in America .
It is us .
America was built by the first few Founding generations to be run by active citizens .
The farmers , craftsmen , and merchants who read the Federalist Papers and listened to the three hour-long Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 ( see the transcripts ) .
People who cared about America , and therefore read the news seriously – not as entertainment .
I fear that we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a gift to our rulers .
Since 2003 , I have run scores of posts deconstructing current propaganda stories .
The common link is that their audiences , Right or Left , do not care if these stories are false .
They flee fact-based rebuttals like vampires running from the dawn .
News has become tribal in much of America .
We like propaganda , and so that is what the news media gives us The press is a business in a free-market economy .
They must provide what consumers want , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serves salty high fat food .
A sign of our decay is that we blame businesses for giving us what we want .
We can change .
Revival is an inherent capacity of every society and individual .
We might not have much time remaining to do so , as the 21st might provide challenges greater than we have seen in a long time .

by Fabius Maximus
Summary: Recent news stories about COVID-19 reveal much about America. About us. They point to the greatest threat we face, and show how we can win.
News about those perfidious Chinese
Fox News: “Chinese epicenter Wuhan raises number of virus dead by about 50 percent.” Red emphasis added.
“China raised Wuhan’s coronavirus death toll by nearly 50 percent Friday following weeks of allegations that officials were underreporting the numbers to make the situation there look better than it actually was. The city where the coronavirus outbreak is believed to have originated is now reporting 3,869 deaths after adding 1,290 to its previously-announced figure. Numbers of total cases in the city of 11 million were also raised by 325 to 50,333, accounting for about two-thirds of China’s total 82,367 announced cases.
“Chinese state media claimed Friday that the reason for the sudden leap was that medical facilities were overwhelmed during the peak of the outbreak and because of that, ‘belated, missed and mistaken reporting occurred.’ …
”’Due to the insufficiency in admission and treatment capability, a few medical institutions failed to connect with the disease prevention and control system in time, while hospitals were overloaded and medics were overwhelmed with patients,’ the official Xinhua News Agency reported, attributing the comments to an unidentified official with Wuhan’s epidemic and prevention and control headquarters. The new figures were compiled through a comparison of data from Wuhan’s epidemic prevention and control big data system, the city funeral service system, the municipal hospital authority’s information system, and the nucleic acid test system to “remove double-counted cases and fill in missed cases,’ the mystery official added. …
“‘Well, well, well: After repeatedly defending the accuracy of their data, Chinese officials revise the coronavirus death toll in Wuhan,’ tweeted Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.”
This is high grade spin! The “Chinese state media claimed”! A “mystery” official said. This from Fox, whose highly paid stenographers uncritically prints announcements from US government officials who routinely lie on the record about vital matters (see the Big List of Lies) – and gleefully repeats statements from “anonymous” officials without a hint of skepticism (I have never seen calculations on the rating of lying in these “leaks”, but it is probably mind-blowingly high).
More evil deeds reported by the Right
The Right-wing intertubes burned for days with this news: “NYC Officials Just Artificially Increased Their COVID Death Total by 57%” by Joe Saunders at the Western Journal.
“If a national catastrophe isn’t bad enough, make it worse. That appears to be the thinking behind a decision by New York City officials this week that sent the number of dead attributed to the coronavirus outbreak in the city soaring to more than 10,000 — a 57 percent increase over the previous count. And these are numbers Americans are supposed to trust forevermore. Unfortunately, in a United States where the mainstream media daily shows itself to be ever more corrupt, trust is in short supply.”
Joe goes on like this for quite a while. For a more rational report of this news, turn to the NY Times: “N.Y.C. Death Toll Soars Past 10,000 in Revised Virus Count.”
“New York City, already a world epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, sharply increased its death toll by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday, after officials said they were now including people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have died of it. …
“The city and the state have at times differed in their counts of the dead in New York City. As of Monday, the state said that 7,349 had died of the virus in the city. City officials have complained that they are at the whim of the state, which has been slow to share the data it receives from hospitals and nursing homes. The state Health Department explained on its website that the discrepancy is caused by the city and state using ‘different data systems.’”
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Fun fact! The NYC numbers were increased on April 14, a city of 8 million increasing its count of fatalities by “more than 3700.” On April 17, China increased its fatality count by 1,290 for a city of 11 million – a proportionally smaller increase. But the journalists reporting the story about China had amnesia about the NYC news from three days ago, although that gives important context for the NYC story.
Also note the effect of the large, complex, and often conflicting reporting systems in China and America. When this causes confusion (or chaos) in the US, it is business as usual. When it happens in China, conservatives growl about those untrustworthy yellow people.
Extremists undermining our society
The final numbers for employment and GDP take over a year to produce in the US, with its vast and expensive accounting apparatus. Expect only unreliable numbers during a pandemic by doctors trying to save lives (including their own), with accounting a lower priority.
Complex phenomena are not counted like apples – whether CPI, GDP, or deaths from COVID-19. The definitions and accounting systems for all of these are constantly in motion, changed to reflect new knowledge and new collection systems. Before test kits were widely available (January in China, April in the US), clinical data was used to distinguish COVID-19 from the flu. Shifting to test kits changed the nature of the numbers.
Serological tests are far more sensitive than test kids, and so a larger set of new numbers are coming. For example, see a CNN story about a new study, and Nature article about these tests. We will be told that these bigger numbers show that all those experts were lying when they used the kits they had and not the serological tests that were coming in the future! Trust only us, not the mainstream media liars.
Skillful propaganda is a fast track to fame and fortune in a decadent America. But unless read by a skeptical public, they erode the trust that produces social cohesion. Strong social cohesion has been one of America’s greatest strengths, and allowed us to survive many difficult times. I fear we no longer have it. Low trust societies tend to function poorly and collapse under stress.
The most serious threat to America
Every society anywhere and across history faces many existential threats. Natural disasters, foes foreign and domestic, and changing circumstances to which it cannot adapt. Those who warn of these perform a valuable services, for Andy Grove (the CEO who helped build Intel) said …
“Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive.”
I too have written about the many threats to America, and proposed a first step to rationally cope (see We face so many threats, like pandemics. Let’s prepare.) – with recognition being the first step. James Howard Kunstler’s new book is a collection of threats: Living in the Long Emergency. They are all real, of varying probability and severity.
But the past year has changed my view about our greatest danger, the weak link in America. It is us. America was built by the first few Founding generations to be run by active citizens. The farmers, craftsmen, and merchants who read the Federalist Papers and listened to the three hour-long Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 (see the transcripts). People who cared about America, and therefore read the news seriously – not as entertainment.
I fear that we have become weak and easily led like sheep, a gift to our rulers. Since 2003, I have run scores of posts deconstructing current propaganda stories. The common link is that their audiences, Right or Left, do not care if these stories are false. They flee fact-based rebuttals like vampires running from the dawn. News has become tribal in much of America. We like propaganda, and so that is what the news media gives us The press is a business in a free-market economy. They must provide what consumers want, for the same reason McDonald’s serves salty high fat food. A sign of our decay is that we blame businesses for giving us what we want.
We can change. Revival is an inherent capacity of every society and individual. We might not have much time remaining to do so, as the 21st might provide challenges greater than we have seen in a long time.