Weaponizing the Dollar

Don ’ t worry , we ’ re still talking virus , just from a slightly different angle .
I was going to do something completely different , but then I saw an article at the South China Morning Post ( SCMP ) today that made me think “ I don ’ t think that ’ s true ” , realizing that at the same time many people would think it is .
Foreign holdings of US Treasuries are a misty environment for perhaps not just many , but most people .
What triggered the SCMP piece is Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to be one , to default on US dollar-denominated debt owned by China .
Which by one estimate consists for about 70 % of Treasuries .
And there are entire choirs full of voices willing to tell us that China can simply start dumping the -estimated- $ 1.2 trillion in Treasuries it holds , and threaten if not end the USD reserve currency status that way , if the US doesn ’ t “ behave ” .
There ’ s little doubt that China would want this , but that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What should give that away is , how easy can we make it for you , that it hasn ’ t done so yet .
And now a conflict over the origin of a virus would trigger this ?
On a side note : if that origin is somewhere in China , even if it ’ s unintentional , how could Beijing possibly “ admit ” to it ?
How could it ever settle the lawsuits that would ensue ?
No , the US can not default on China ’ s holdings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a larger threat to the reserve currency status than anything anybody else could do , other then nuclear war .
But at the same time , China can not dump its Treasury holdings .
because that would hurt … China .
And don ’ t forget that China and the US are in a symbiotic relationship of chief seller and chief buyer .
Drastic changes in that relationship would -almost- certainly lead to consequences that neither can fully oversee , and that could hurt either or both tremendously .
Where are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy from China ?
Who is China going to sell to what they today sell to the US ?
The countries are for all intents and purposes Siamese twins .
Whatever can change , can only do so gradually .
And even then .
No matter how much I read about it ( a lot ) , this particular field is still not my expertise .
But when I read the SCMP piece , it reminded me right off the bat of something that Michael Pettis , professor of finance at Peking University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he specializes in Chinese financial markets , wrote on May 28 2019 , in an update of an article he wrote in January 2018 ( all pre-virustime ) .
I liked Michael ’ s take from the moment it was published , because I learned a lot .
I think you might too .
I can ’ t do this without some elaborate quotes , but at least that will make me shut up a little .
Please bear with me .
I don ’ t find the SCMP piece all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a failing counterweight to Pettis .
With all that in mind , let ’ s take the SCMP piece first : China Could Cut US Debt Holdings In Response To White House COVID19 Compensation Threats [ .. ] White House officials have debated several measures to offset the cost of the coronavirus outbreak , including cancelling some or all of the nearly US $ 1.1 trillion debt that the United States government owes China .
While analysts added that the US was highly unlikely to take the “ nuclear option ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been discussed could well prompt Beijing to seek to insulate itself from the risk by reducing its US government debt holdings .
That , in turn , could spell trouble for the US government bond market at a time when Washington is significantly ramping up new issuance to pay for a series of programmes to combat the pandemic and the economic damage it is causing .
“ It ’ s such a crazy idea that anyone who has made it should really have their fitness for office reconsidered , ” said Cliff Tan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research at MUFG Bank .
“ We view this as largely a political ploy for [ Donald Trump ’ s ] re-election and a cynical one because it would destroy the financing of the US federal budget deficit.
” [ .. ] any move to cancel the debt owed to China – effectively defaulting on it – would be counterproductive to US interests because it would likely destroy investors ’ faith in the trustworthiness of the US government to pay its bills [ .. ] The US Treasury two-year yield continued to trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting market traders and fund managers are largely shrugging off what is widely seen as a far-fetched idea that the US could cancel some or all of China ’ s debt .
The whole idea that the US would default on its own Treasury debt is nonsensical .
Why write about it ?
Is that only because you don ’ t understand what ’ s involved ?
And your editor doesn ’ t either ?
Nevertheless , the news that the idea was discussed by top US officials is likely to raise concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of holding a large amount of US government debt at a time when relations appear to be deteriorating rapidly , analysts said .
Iris Pang , Greater China chief economist at ING Bank , said unless it had no choice , China would want to avoid quickly offloading its US government debt without first considering other punitive measures against the US .
[ .. ] China could trigger a crash in the US dollar and financial markets by flooding the market with US Treasuries for sale , which would push down US bond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that would also ignite a global financial catastrophe , hurting China as well .
Instead , China could cut back or stop buying new US Treasury issues , which would gradually reduce its holdings of US government securities as old ones expire and are not replaced .
“ In the coming months , [ China could ] halt its Treasury purchases to send a clear signal of its intentions , ” said Pang .
“ If it decides to do that , it could make actual sales [ of its other holdings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is my central point here .
The article says : “ China could trigger a crash in the US dollar and financial markets by flooding the market with US Treasuries.. ” , and I don ’ t think that ’ s true .
Yeah , they can do tariffs or buy less US soybeans , but then again , those have been linked by Trump to US purchases from China .
In the meantime , China may consider imposing tariffs of its own , or reducing its US agricultural purchases .
China has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 200 billion worth of US products and services over the next two years compared to 2017 levels as part of the phase one trade deal signed in January .
[ .. ] There have always been calls for China to diversify its US $ 3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve holdings , around one-third of which are held in US Treasuries .
According to the latest US Treasury Department report , China ’ s holdings slipped to US $ 1.09 trillion in February from a peak of US $ 1.32 trillion in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a strong urge for countries like China , and Russia , to move away from US dollar settlements .
This is simply because the US dollar can be weaponised by the US government , ” said Xu Sitao , chief economist at Deloitte China , referring to the recent practise by the US government of cutting off foreign individuals , companies and governments from the global US dollar financial transaction settlement system , greatly complicating their ability to conduct business .
“ Clearly there ’ s more willingness for certain countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US dollar settlements.
” Sure , but that ’ s old stuff , as old as the petrodollar .
Still , the article supposedly deals with -life-during-and-after-COVID19 .
Has nothing changed ?
Well , perhaps not .
But then why the article ?
If China doesn ’ t have the US as an export market , both go down , so I ’ m not sure why a news outlet would want to discuss this without providing the proper news “ environment ” .
And anyway , it ’ s just not true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methodically putting the final nail in that coffin , and showing why the whole notion is just a load of crock .
China Can not Weaponize Its US Treasury Bonds China can not sell off its holdings of U.S. government bonds because Chinese purchases were not made to accommodate U.S. needs .
Rather , China made these purchases to accommodate a domestic demand deficiency in China : Chinese capital exports are simply the flip side of the country ’ s current account surplus , and without the former , they could not hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter .
To see why any Chinese threat to retaliate against U.S. trade intervention would actually undermine China ’ s own position in the trade negotiations , consider all the ways in which Beijing can reduce its purchases of U.S. government bonds : 1 ) Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government bonds and more other U.S. assets , so that net capital flows from China to the United States would remain unchanged .
2 ) Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government and other U.S. assets , but other Chinese entities could then in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that net capital flows from China to the United States would stay unchanged .
3 ) Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and replace them with an equivalently larger amount of assets from other developed countries , so that net capital flows from China to the United States would be reduced , and net capital flows from China to other developedcountries would increase by the same amount .
4 ) Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and replace them with an equivalently larger amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that net capital flows from China to the United States would be reduced , and net capital flows from China to other developing countries Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and not replace them by purchasing an equivalently larger amount of assets from other countries , so that net capital flows from China to the United States and to the world would be reduced .
These five paths cover every possible way Beijing can reduce official purchases of U.S. government bonds : China can buy other U.S. assets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or domestic assets .
No other option is possible .
The first two ways would change nothing for either China or the United States .
The second two ways would change nothing for China but would cause the U.S. trade deficit to decline , either in ways that would reduce U.S. unemployment or in ways that would reduce U.S. debt .
Finally , the fifth way would also cause the U.S. trade deficit to decline in ways that would likely either reduce U.S. unemployment or reduce U.S. debt ; but this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese trade surplus to decline in ways that would either increase Chinese unemployment or increase Chinese debt .
By purchasing fewer U.S. government bonds , in other words , Beijing would leave the United States either unchanged or better off , while doing so would also leave China either unchanged or worse off .
This doesn ’ t strike me as a policy Beijing is likely to pursue hotly , and Washington would certainly not be opposed to it .
I always thought this was a crystal clear explanation of what lies behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides .
One half of a Siamese twin can stab or poison the other , but what would be the outcome of that ?
And Pettis has more , and then much more at the link .
The US can not default on its debt because its reserve currency status would be shot .
Trump knows that and still throws it out there .
So what do you do as a serious journalist ?
Repeat that without as much as a question mark ?
In the same vein , China can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least not at any meaningful kind of pace .
So what do you do as a serious journalist ?
You claim that it can ?

by Raúl Ilargi Meijer
Saul Leiter Phone call c1957
Don’t worry, we’re still talking virus, just from a slightly different angle. I was going to do something completely different, but then I saw an article at the South China Morning Post (SCMP) today that made me think “I don’t think that’s true”, realizing that at the same time many people would think it is.
Foreign holdings of US Treasuries are a misty environment for perhaps not just many, but most people. What triggered the SCMP piece is Trump’s threat, if it was ever meant to be one, to default on US dollar-denominated debt owned by China. Which by one estimate consists for about 70% of Treasuries.
And there are entire choirs full of voices willing to tell us that China can simply start dumping the -estimated- $1.2 trillion in Treasuries it holds, and threaten if not end the USD reserve currency status that way, if the US doesn’t “behave”. There’s little doubt that China would want this, but that doesn’t make the idea any more realistic.
What should give that away is, how easy can we make it for you, that it hasn’t done so yet. And now a conflict over the origin of a virus would trigger this? On a side note: if that origin is somewhere in China, even if it’s unintentional, how could Beijing possibly “admit” to it? How could it ever settle the lawsuits that would ensue?
No, the US cannot default on China’s holdings of its Treasuries. That alone would be a larger threat to the reserve currency status than anything anybody else could do, other then nuclear war. But at the same time, China cannot dump its Treasury holdings. because that would hurt … China.
And don’t forget that China and the US are in a symbiotic relationship of chief seller and chief buyer. Drastic changes in that relationship would -almost- certainly lead to consequences that neither can fully oversee, and that could hurt either or both tremendously.
Where are the US going to buy what they now buy from China? Who is China going to sell to what they today sell to the US? The countries are for all intents and purposes Siamese twins. Whatever can change, can only do so gradually. And even then.
No matter how much I read about it (a lot), this particular field is still not my expertise. But when I read the SCMP piece, it reminded me right off the bat of something that Michael Pettis, professor of finance at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management, where he specializes in Chinese financial markets, wrote on May 28 2019, in an update of an article he wrote in January 2018 (all pre-virustime).
I liked Michael’s take from the moment it was published, because I learned a lot. I think you might too. I can’t do this without some elaborate quotes, but at least that will make me shut up a little. Please bear with me. I don’t find the SCMP piece all that interesting, but it’s good as a failing counterweight to Pettis.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
With all that in mind, let’s take the SCMP piece first:
China Could Cut US Debt Holdings In Response To White House COVID19 Compensation Threats
[..] White House officials have debated several measures to offset the cost of the coronavirus outbreak, including cancelling some or all of the nearly US$1.1 trillion debt that the United States government owes China. While analysts added that the US was highly unlikely to take the “nuclear option”, the mere fact that the idea has been discussed could well prompt Beijing to seek to insulate itself from the risk by reducing its US government debt holdings. That, in turn, could spell trouble for the US government bond market at a time when Washington is significantly ramping up new issuance to pay for a series of programmes to combat the pandemic and the economic damage it is causing. “It’s such a crazy idea that anyone who has made it should really have their fitness for office reconsidered,” said Cliff Tan, East Asian head of global markets research at MUFG Bank. “We view this as largely a political ploy for [Donald Trump’s] re-election and a cynical one because it would destroy the financing of the US federal budget deficit.” [..] any move to cancel the debt owed to China – effectively defaulting on it – would be counterproductive to US interests because it would likely destroy investors’ faith in the trustworthiness of the US government to pay its bills [..] The US Treasury two-year yield continued to trade near record low levels this week, suggesting market traders and fund managers are largely shrugging off what is widely seen as a far-fetched idea that the US could cancel some or all of China’s debt.
The whole idea that the US would default on its own Treasury debt is nonsensical. Why write about it? Is that only because you don’t understand what’s involved? And your editor doesn’t either?
Nevertheless, the news that the idea was discussed by top US officials is likely to raise concerns among Chinese leaders about the growing risks of holding a large amount of US government debt at a time when relations appear to be deteriorating rapidly, analysts said. Iris Pang, Greater China chief economist at ING Bank, said unless it had no choice, China would want to avoid quickly offloading its US government debt without first considering other punitive measures against the US.
[..] China could trigger a crash in the US dollar and financial markets by flooding the market with US Treasuries for sale, which would push down US bond prices and cause yields to spike. But that would also ignite a global financial catastrophe, hurting China as well. Instead, China could cut back or stop buying new US Treasury issues, which would gradually reduce its holdings of US government securities as old ones expire and are not replaced. “In the coming months, [China could] halt its Treasury purchases to send a clear signal of its intentions,” said Pang. “If it decides to do that, it could make actual sales [of its other holdings] at a later date.”
This is my central point here. The article says: “China could trigger a crash in the US dollar and financial markets by flooding the market with US Treasuries..”, and I don’t think that’s true. Yeah, they can do tariffs or buy less US soybeans, but then again, those have been linked by Trump to US purchases from China.
In the meantime, China may consider imposing tariffs of its own, or reducing its US agricultural purchases. China has agreed to buy an additional US$200 billion worth of US products and services over the next two years compared to 2017 levels as part of the phase one trade deal signed in January. [..] There have always been calls for China to diversify its US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve holdings, around one-third of which are held in US Treasuries. According to the latest US Treasury Department report, China’s holdings slipped to US$1.09 trillion in February from a peak of US$1.32 trillion in November 2013.
[..] “There’s a strong urge for countries like China, and Russia, to move away from US dollar settlements. This is simply because the US dollar can be weaponised by the US government,” said Xu Sitao, chief economist at Deloitte China, referring to the recent practise by the US government of cutting off foreign individuals, companies and governments from the global US dollar financial transaction settlement system, greatly complicating their ability to conduct business. “Clearly there’s more willingness for certain countries just to diversify and move away from US dollar settlements.”
Sure, but that’s old stuff, as old as the petrodollar. Still, the article supposedly deals with -life-during-and-after-COVID19. Has nothing changed? Well, perhaps not. But then why the article?
[..] David Chin, the founder of Basis Point Consulting, said China could be forced to toughen up its act if it no longer earned US dollars from its exports to the US because of a significant US-China decoupling. If that were to happen, China could sell its US Treasury holdings for yuan, seeking to engineer a collapse in the US dollar to end its status as the ruling currency. “Its ‘I die, you die harder’,” Chin said. “With no US export market, China would go the other way and rely on internal consumption, trade with Belt and Road countries and the rest of the world in their local currencies, and prepare to ‘eat bitter’ as local conditions worsen.”
If China doesn’t have the US as an export market, both go down, so I’m not sure why a news outlet would want to discuss this without providing the proper news “environment”. And anyway, it’s just not true. Here’s Michael Pettis very methodically putting the final nail in that coffin, and showing why the whole notion is just a load of crock.
China Cannot Weaponize Its US Treasury Bonds
China cannot sell off its holdings of U.S. government bonds because Chinese purchases were not made to accommodate U.S. needs. Rather, China made these purchases to accommodate a domestic demand deficiency in China: Chinese capital exports are simply the flip side of the country’s current account surplus, and without the former, they could not hold down the currency enough to permit the latter. To see why any Chinese threat to retaliate against U.S. trade intervention would actually undermine China’s own position in the trade negotiations, consider all the ways in which Beijing can reduce its purchases of U.S. government bonds: 1) Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government bonds and more other U.S. assets, so that net capital flows from China to the United States would remain unchanged. 2) Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government and other U.S. assets, but other Chinese entities could then in turn buy more U.S. assets , so that net capital flows from China to the United States would stay unchanged. 3) Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and replace them with an equivalently larger amount of assets from other developed countries , so that net capital flows from China to the United States would be reduced, and net capital flows from China to other developedcountries would increase by the same amount. 4) Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and replace them with an equivalently larger amount of assets from other developing countries , so that net capital flows from China to the United States would be reduced, and net capital flows from China to other developing countries Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and not replace them by purchasing an equivalently larger amount of assets from other countries, so that net capital flows from China to the United States and to the world would be reduced. These five paths cover every possible way Beijing can reduce official purchases of U.S. government bonds: China can buy other U.S. assets, other developed-country assets, other developing-country assets, or domestic assets. No other option is possible. The first two ways would change nothing for either China or the United States. The second two ways would change nothing for China but would cause the U.S. trade deficit to decline, either in ways that would reduce U.S. unemployment or in ways that would reduce U.S. debt. Finally, the fifth way would also cause the U.S. trade deficit to decline in ways that would likely either reduce U.S. unemployment or reduce U.S. debt; but this would come at the expense of causing the Chinese trade surplus to decline in ways that would either increase Chinese unemployment or increase Chinese debt. By purchasing fewer U.S. government bonds, in other words, Beijing would leave the United States either unchanged or better off, while doing so would also leave China either unchanged or worse off. This doesn’t strike me as a policy Beijing is likely to pursue hotly, and Washington would certainly not be opposed to it.
I always thought this was a crystal clear explanation of what lies behind the threats that are continually uttered from both sides. One half of a Siamese twin can stab or poison the other, but what would be the outcome of that? And Pettis has more, and then much more at the link.
[..] Even if Beijing forced institutions like the People’s Bank of China to purchase fewer U.S. government bonds, such a step cannot credibly be seen as meaningful retaliation against rising trade protectionism in the United States. As I have showed, Beijing’s decision would have no impact at all on the U.S. balance of payments, or it would have a positive impact. It would have almost no impact on U.S. interest rates, except to the extent perhaps of a slight narrowing of credit spreads to balance a slight increase in riskless rates. It would also have no impact on the Chinese balance of payments in the case that it leaves the U.S. balance of payments unaffected. To the extent that it would result in a narrower U.S. trade deficit, there are only three possible ways this might affect the Chinese balance. First, China could export more capital to developed countries, in which case the decision would have no immediate impact on China’s overall balance of payments, but it would run the risk of angering its trade partners and inviting retaliation. Second, China could export more capital to developing countries, in which case the decision would have no immediate impact on China’s overall balance of payments, but it would run the very high risk of increasing its investment losses abroad. Or third, China could simply reduce its capital exports abroad, in which case it would be forced into running a lower trade surplus, which could only be countered, in China’s case, with higher unemployment or a much faster increase in debt.
The US cannot default on its debt because its reserve currency status would be shot. Trump knows that and still throws it out there. So what do you do as a serious journalist? Repeat that without as much as a question mark?
In the same vein, China cannot sell its USD-denominated assets, or at least not at any meaningful kind of pace. So what do you do as a serious journalist? You claim that it can?


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--Police Are Using Drones To Monitor The Homeless And Check People’s Temperatures

All across the country , law enforcement is using the pandemic as an excuse to use Chinese-made drones to monitor the public .
Which breaks EVERY promise law enforcement has ever made regarding the use of drones .
( More on that later . )
A recent Miami Herald article revealed how police are using Chinese-made DJI drones to monitor the homeless and check a person ’ s temperature .
The article , written by Charles Rabin , said that both agencies stopped using thermal imaging drones after civil liberty groups warned that police drones have essentially become “ Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person ’ s health is protected under federal law thus posing the question , “ Are drone readings , even with sophisticated infrared sensors , a trustworthy way to protect public health without violating individual rights ?
” But none of that matters to American law enforcement .
In Florida , the Daytona Police Department has found away to justify using drones to check a person ’ s health .
The Daytona Police Departments ’ justification for using drones is intentionally misleading .
Either police are using thermal imaging drones on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no middle ground when it comes to using drones to invade the public ’ s privacy .
An article in the Daytona Beach Journal revealed just how misleading the Daytona Police Department has been about using drones to monitor the marginalized .
A comment made by Tom Sherick , who ’ s been homeless in Daytona Beach on and off for six years , was a little more revealing .
“ Sometimes people driving by will see you and give you food , but the cops try to shut it down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could the police also be using drones to monitor motorists who stop to feed the homeless ?
According to a recent article in The Appeal , the Miami Police Department has arrested 30 percent of the homeless population for not practicing social distancing and breaking curfew .
In the seven weeks since Miami-Dade County issued their stay-at-home order , the police have arrested 3,526 homeless people .
The COVID-19 excuse to target the homeless and invade our privacy appears to be in full swing as police use drones to warn people to social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a right to privacy .
“ People have a right to privacy .
You can ’ t just take their temperature without any reason .
I think this is just an example of something that police departments have a tendency to do .
Someone sells them on a new technology and they can come up with what they think is reason to use it and they use it , but they don ’ t necessarily think about how invasive it might be , ” said Caleb Kruckenberg , litigation counsel for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mentioned that law enforcement broke every promise they ever made about using drones except during in an emergency .
For years , law enforcement defined what constituted an emergency as a ‘ search and rescue , hostage situation , missing child or adult , remote crime scenes , incidents involving hazardous materials , monitoring crowds at large events and collision documentation ’ .
Not once in their millions of promises to the public , did law enforcement try and justify using thermal imaging drones to scan everyone .
( A Google search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an emergency ” returned a staggering 4.3 million hits . )
The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) posted some interesting thoughts about allowing police to use thermal imaging drones .
As laudable as EFF ’ s efforts are , it is hard to see anyone stopping the tidal wave of fear that has gripped America during this pandemic .
As I mentioned last month , it is only a matter of time before police drones and CCTV cameras are turned into heartbeat measuring monsters .
EFF also revealed how law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increase public surveillance .
The fight to keep our privacy is a never-ending battle against government and corporate interests that want to know everything about everyone .

by mapi
All across the country, law enforcement is using the pandemic as an excuse to use Chinese-made drones to monitor the public. Which breaks EVERY promise law enforcement has ever made regarding the use of drones. (More on that later.)
A recent Miami Herald article revealed how police are using Chinese-made DJI drones to monitor the homeless and check a person’s temperature.
“Last month, police departments in Daytona Beach and Connecticut unveiled what was initially touted as a potential new tool against a pandemic: drones capable of taking a person’s temperature from 300 feet in the air.”
The article, written by Charles Rabin, said that both agencies stopped using thermal imaging drones after civil liberty groups warned that police drones have essentially become “Big Doctor” in the sky.
Monitoring a person’s health is protected under federal law thus posing the question, “Are drone readings, even with sophisticated infrared sensors, a trustworthy way to protect public health without violating individual rights?”
But none of that matters to American law enforcement.
In Florida, the Daytona Police Department has found away to justify using drones to check a person’s health.
“But after public backlash, Westport police killed the plan before it was activated. And police in Daytona Beach clarified that the technology hasn’t been used to seek out random fevers in public spaces. Daytona Beach Police spokesman Messod Bendayon conceded the drone had been used but not to search public spaces for random fevers.”
The Daytona Police Departments’ justification for using drones is intentionally misleading. Either police are using thermal imaging drones on the public or they are not. Their is no middle ground when it comes to using drones to invade the public’s privacy.
An article in the Daytona Beach Journal revealed just how misleading the Daytona Police Department has been about using drones to monitor the marginalized.
“When the homeless do gather in groups, the police department’s drones have swooped in to ask them to disperse, Buck James, executive director of Halifax Urban Ministries said.
A comment made by Tom Sherick, who’s been homeless in Daytona Beach on and off for six years, was a little more revealing. “Sometimes people driving by will see you and give you food, but the cops try to shut it down,” Sherick said.
Ask yourself, could the police also be using drones to monitor motorists who stop to feed the homeless?
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
According to a recent article in The Appeal, the Miami Police Department has arrested 30 percent of the homeless population for not practicing social distancing and breaking curfew.
“On March 27, Miami area officers arrested two homeless men for unlawfully using a dairy crate—a Florida law that effectively allows police to arrest homeless people for sitting. “
In the seven weeks since Miami-Dade County issued their stay-at-home order, the police have arrested 3,526 homeless people.
The COVID-19 excuse to target the homeless and invade our privacy appears to be in full swing as police use drones to warn people to social distance.
As USA Today explains people have a right to privacy.
“People have a right to privacy. You can’t just take their temperature without any reason. I think this is just an example of something that police departments have a tendency to do. Someone sells them on a new technology and they can come up with what they think is reason to use it and they use it, but they don’t necessarily think about how invasive it might be,” said Caleb Kruckenberg, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Earlier, I mentioned that law enforcement broke every promise they ever made about using drones except during in an emergency. For years, law enforcement defined what constituted an emergency as a ‘search and rescue, hostage situation, missing child or adult, remote crime scenes, incidents involving hazardous materials, monitoring crowds at large events and collision documentation’.
Not once in their millions of promises to the public, did law enforcement try and justify using thermal imaging drones to scan everyone. (A Google search for “police promise drones only used in an emergency” returned a staggering 4.3 million hits.)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted some interesting thoughts about allowing police to use thermal imaging drones.
“We’d want guarantees that such drones are part of a temporary public health approach to social distancing, and not a permanent criminal justice approach to gatherings in public places. For example, there would need to be guidelines that would only allow public health officials, rather than law enforcement, access to the drones. “
As laudable as EFF’s efforts are, it is hard to see anyone stopping the tidal wave of fear that has gripped America during this pandemic.
As I mentioned last month, it is only a matter of time before police drones and CCTV cameras are turned into heartbeat measuring monsters.
“The new model will have several advanced features to the typical infrared cameras that are currently being used to measure body surface temperature. The VSBLTY-Photon-X cameras will additionally measure heartbeat and oxygen saturation levels with the goal of helping to produce less false positives than the standard infrared cameras now in use.”
EFF also revealed how law enforcement is using the pandemic as an excuse to increase public surveillance.
“No government agencies should use this moment to purchase new drones, which ensures that agencies would find excuses in the future to use the drones for other purposes, in order to justify the initial expense. We don’t want more government drones flying over concerts and rallies in the not-so-distant future.”
The fight to keep our privacy is a never-ending battle against government and corporate interests that want to know everything about everyone.


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--Cash is Trash, Especially for the Post-COVID World

There ’ s been a concerted effort recently among the oligarchs I like to call The Davos Crowd to demonize cash .
From hedge fund manager Ray Dalio pronouncing ‘ Cash is trash ’ earlier this year to the fear-mongering surrounding COVID-19 making people fearful of dealing in cash because it might be tainted the anti-cash rhetoric has been amped up to eleven .
And it ’ s been no secret that the elite of the world want us to stop transacting in cash because it is something they can ’ t track .
Sweden has flirted with the cashless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with large denomination bills the same way the U.S. has been phasing them out .
A few years ago , India created a huge stir removing the 500 and 1000 rupee note from circulation .
All of these moves have been , nominally , in service of stamping out corruption .
They are sold to the public as a way to punish criminals and money launderers .
But the reality is that the push for removing cash from society is to put all of our financial dealings in databases which gives authorities a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments around the world become increasingly bankrupt they naturally look for ways to improve tax compliance as well as create profiles of anyone they deem a threat to their continued existence .
That ’ s the real reason for why ‘ cash is trash ’ to authorities .
And the moves towards digital only versions of national currencies is an extension of the power grab currently underway as a response to the crisis of COVID-19 .
But , more than that , the reason for this demonization of cash has as much to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global financial system is broken and will need a global coordinated bailout .
The easiest way to effect that is to be able to create digital money at the stroke of a keyboard .
The crisis of 2008 was bigger than the Federal Reserve .
To survive it required the coordinated effort of all the major central banks along with support from the International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) .
So , color me not shocked when I see this report from Sputnik that the head of the Shanghai Gold Exchange publicly make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital currency to replace the U.S. dollar as the world ’ s trade settlement currency .
According to Wang Zhenying , quoted by Reuters , the dollar , as a weapon of US pressure and a source of vulnerability for other countries , can no longer be the standard global currency .
He admits that gold is also not an ideal means of exchange , as its quantity is limited and it can not meet the needs of growing international trade .
Therefore , a supranational currency for settlements independent of any country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something new and was already promoted by China during the last financial crisis of 2008-2009 .
Then Chinese central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan proposed to reform the system of international settlements through special drawing rights ( SDR ) .
Author and commentator Jim Rickards has been making this point for more than a decade .
He ’ s talked openly in his previous books The Death of Money and Currency Wars about the plans for the IMF to assume the role as the world ’ s central bank because the crisis in process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks .
I agree with Jim on this and have for years .
The world ’ s elite have discussed these things openly .
They ’ ve written white papers on this .
But what is interesting now is that Mr. Zhenying is modifying this idea slightly , talking in terms of a hard currency of some form to replace the U.S. dollar .
But , look at his argument closely and you ’ ll see the bait and switch for while he doesn ’ t believe we ’ ll get consensus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) as a way to settle accounts he doesn ’ t believe gold is viable either .
So what will it be , then ?
Countries , like China , are already working on digital versions of their national currencies .
The U.S. Congress tried to slip this language into the recently-passed first CARES Act authorizing trillions in bailouts and stimulus money .
Russia has been working on a digital as well as a cryptocurrency version of the ruble .
The EU desperately wants member states to agree to debt mutualization and fiscal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Central Bank to create digital only euros and end physical euros once and for all .
Gold ownership in Germany is now highly suspect with the German government openly tracking all gold sales greater than 1000 euros , less than one ounce .
Financial privacy is , effectively , already a thing of the past .
Even the cryptocurrency markets in the so-called first world have to be AML ( Anti-Money Laundering ) and KYC ( Know Your Customer ) compliant to get the ability to operate with the existing financial infrastructure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a real thing .
It ’ s a dangerous and worrying trend because it assumes all taxes and fees demanded by governments are legitimate .
It assumes that if you want to remain private you are a money launderer and a cheat .
And what ’ s most worrying is that opposition to U.S. hegemonic behavior , weaponizing the dollar the way the Trump administration has , will be used as the rallying cry for an even worse system of social and financial control .
I ’ m all for the multi-polar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a global trade settlement currency as administered by governments .
Do you really think that any other country wouldn ’ t eventually come to look like the U.S. after nearly a century of dominating the world ’ s financial landscape ?
If you do then I assert you are either terminally naïve or a shill .
That ’ s what this story is really all about .
The Davos Crowd never sets up a dynamic like this which leaves people with anything other than a Hobson ’ s Choice .
You can either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rapacious banking oligarchy or you can choose an equally bad one administered as a global one .
But that isn ’ t the only choice .
Mr. Zhenying isn ’ t wrong that something new is needed but it needs to be a real hard currency based on antecedent value , not birthed out of thin air or backed by future labor ( debt ) .
The dollar reserve standard is in the process of dying .
The great financialization of the world and the multiple levels of credit bubbles its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to alternatives .
And in the great game of global capital a country only has to be slightly better than the current dominant player to attract the lion ’ s share once the outflows begin .
China is positioning itself to be a bigger player here but the IMF , governed and controlled by the U.S. , is not the solution .
That ’ s a ‘ meet the new boss , same as the old boss ’ scenario .
Right now gold is seeing a strong bid the world over and Bitcoin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reward pool which occurs every four years .
There has never been a better opportunity for people to reject the pronouncements and solutions of the very people who have so thoroughly destroyed our ability to assess risk and value .
And it will be the discipline of cash tied to real assets , birthed from human toil but free from human manipulation that will return sanity to our markets and local economies .
That ’ s what a hard currency is .
That ’ s what Mr. Zhenying administers at the SGE and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back .

by Tom Luongo via Strategic Culture Foundation
There’s been a concerted effort recently among the oligarchs I like to call The Davos Crowd to demonize cash. From hedge fund manager Ray Dalio pronouncing ‘Cash is trash’ earlier this year to the fear-mongering surrounding COVID-19 making people fearful of dealing in cash because it might be tainted the anti-cash rhetoric has been amped up to eleven.
And it’s been no secret that the elite of the world want us to stop transacting in cash because it is something they can’t track. Sweden has flirted with the cashless society while the European Union did away with large denomination bills the same way the U.S. has been phasing them out.
A few years ago, India created a huge stir removing the 500 and 1000 rupee note from circulation. All of these moves have been, nominally, in service of stamping out corruption. They are sold to the public as a way to punish criminals and money launderers.
But the reality is that the push for removing cash from society is to put all of our financial dealings in databases which gives authorities a record of everything you do. As governments around the world become increasingly bankrupt they naturally look for ways to improve tax compliance as well as create profiles of anyone they deem a threat to their continued existence.
That’s the real reason for why ‘cash is trash’ to authorities. And the moves towards digital only versions of national currencies is an extension of the power grab currently underway as a response to the crisis of COVID-19.
But, more than that, the reason for this demonization of cash has as much to do with the understanding that the current global financial system is broken and will need a global coordinated bailout.
The easiest way to effect that is to be able to create digital money at the stroke of a keyboard.
The crisis of 2008 was bigger than the Federal Reserve. To survive it required the coordinated effort of all the major central banks along with support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
So, color me not shocked when I see this report from Sputnik that the head of the Shanghai Gold Exchange publicly make the case in favor of a transnational digital currency to replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s trade settlement currency.
According to Wang Zhenying, quoted by Reuters, the dollar, as a weapon of US pressure and a source of vulnerability for other countries, can no longer be the standard global currency. He admits that gold is also not an ideal means of exchange, as its quantity is limited and it cannot meet the needs of growing international trade. Therefore, a supranational currency for settlements independent of any country is needed.
This idea is not something new and was already promoted by China during the last financial crisis of 2008-2009. Then Chinese central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan proposed to reform the system of international settlements through special drawing rights (SDR).
Author and commentator Jim Rickards has been making this point for more than a decade. He’s talked openly in his previous books The Death of Money and Currency Wars about the plans for the IMF to assume the role as the world’s central bank because the crisis in process will be greater than all the central banks.
I agree with Jim on this and have for years. The world’s elite have discussed these things openly. They’ve written white papers on this.
But what is interesting now is that Mr. Zhenying is modifying this idea slightly, talking in terms of a hard currency of some form to replace the U.S. dollar. But, look at his argument closely and you’ll see the bait and switch for while he doesn’t believe we’ll get consensus on using IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDR) as a way to settle accounts he doesn’t believe gold is viable either.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
So what will it be, then?
Countries, like China, are already working on digital versions of their national currencies. The U.S. Congress tried to slip this language into the recently-passed first CARES Act authorizing trillions in bailouts and stimulus money.
Russia has been working on a digital as well as a cryptocurrency version of the ruble. The EU desperately wants member states to agree to debt mutualization and fiscal integration under the auspice of the European Central Bank to create digital only euros and end physical euros once and for all.
Gold ownership in Germany is now highly suspect with the German government openly tracking all gold sales greater than 1000 euros, less than one ounce.
Financial privacy is, effectively, already a thing of the past. Even the cryptocurrency markets in the so-called first world have to be AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and KYC (Know Your Customer) compliant to get the ability to operate with the existing financial infrastructure.
The push for the end of cash is a real thing. It’s a dangerous and worrying trend because it assumes all taxes and fees demanded by governments are legitimate. It assumes that if you want to remain private you are a money launderer and a cheat.
And what’s most worrying is that opposition to U.S. hegemonic behavior, weaponizing the dollar the way the Trump administration has, will be used as the rallying cry for an even worse system of social and financial control.
I’m all for the multi-polar world but we don’t need a global trade settlement currency as administered by governments. Do you really think that any other country wouldn’t eventually come to look like the U.S. after nearly a century of dominating the world’s financial landscape?
If you do then I assert you are either terminally naïve or a shill.
That’s what this story is really all about. The Davos Crowd never sets up a dynamic like this which leaves people with anything other than a Hobson’s Choice. You can either suffer under the tyranny of the U.S.’s rapacious banking oligarchy or you can choose an equally bad one administered as a global one.
But that isn’t the only choice. Mr. Zhenying isn’t wrong that something new is needed but it needs to be a real hard currency based on antecedent value, not birthed out of thin air or backed by future labor (debt).
The dollar reserve standard is in the process of dying. The great financialization of the world and the multiple levels of credit bubbles its engendered are bursting. People are open to alternatives. And in the great game of global capital a country only has to be slightly better than the current dominant player to attract the lion’s share once the outflows begin.
China is positioning itself to be a bigger player here but the IMF, governed and controlled by the U.S., is not the solution. That’s a ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ scenario.
Right now gold is seeing a strong bid the world over and Bitcoin is rising into the halving of its reward pool which occurs every four years. There has never been a better opportunity for people to reject the pronouncements and solutions of the very people who have so thoroughly destroyed our ability to assess risk and value.
And it will be the discipline of cash tied to real assets, birthed from human toil but free from human manipulation that will return sanity to our markets and local economies. That’s what a hard currency is. That’s what Mr. Zhenying administers at the SGE and that’s what needs to come back.


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--Gates Admits 700,000 People May Die from his Vaccine

Personally , I think Gates has just proven he is a psychopath .
He just admitted that 700,000 people would die from his vaccine and that ’ s OK , its collateral damage I suppose .
The total worldwide death from his scare tactics is 263,346 .
That is far less than 700,000 assuming its only 1 % who die from his vaccines .
In 1976 , concerns in the United States about a possible influenza pandemic involving a virus similar to the deadly 1918 pandemic strain resulted in a large-scale vaccination program for the entire country .
Approximately 45 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with what became known as the “ swine flu vaccine.
” The US government abruptly stopped the vaccination program when no swine flu cases were detected outside the military base where the disease originated and when an unexpectedly high number of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome were reported in vaccinated individuals .
The vaccine was estimated to have caused approximately one Guillain-Barré syndrome case per 100,000 persons vaccinated , resulting in 53 deaths .
As a result of the association between the 1976 swine flu vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome , this condition is closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the influenza vaccine safety monitoring in the United States .
I do not think 700,000 people should sacrifice their lives for Bill Gates and what kind of person would even demand the entire world be vaccinated ?
This seems to me to be more of an effort to be exonerated from any liability , a complete denial of human and civil rights to FORCE people to be vaccinated , by a man who has no medical background and whose body language of always waving his hands in the air appears to me as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I will publish a piece on Gates in two days which is personal .
I do not like to attack people on a personal level .
I think that is unprofessional .
Unfortunately , this seems to be a war we are clearly in for the lives of our families as well as ourselves and our communities .

by Martin Armstrong
Personally, I think Gates has just proven he is a psychopath. He just admitted that 700,000 people would die from his vaccine and that’s OK, its collateral damage I suppose.
The total worldwide death from his scare tactics is 263,346. That is far less than 700,000 assuming its only 1% who die from his vaccines. In 1976, concerns in the United States about a possible influenza pandemic involving a virus similar to the deadly 1918 pandemic strain resulted in a large-scale vaccination program for the entire country. Approximately 45 million people were vaccinated in 10 weeks with what became known as the “swine flu vaccine.” The US government abruptly stopped the vaccination program when no swine flu cases were detected outside the military base where the disease originated and when an unexpectedly high number of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome were reported in vaccinated individuals. The vaccine was estimated to have caused approximately one Guillain-Barré syndrome case per 100,000 persons vaccinated, resulting in 53 deaths. As a result of the association between the 1976 swine flu vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome, this condition is closely monitored every influenza season as part of the influenza vaccine safety monitoring in the United States.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
I do not think 700,000 people should sacrifice their lives for Bill Gates and what kind of person would even demand the entire world be vaccinated? This seems to me to be more of an effort to be exonerated from any liability, a complete denial of human and civil rights to FORCE people to be vaccinated, by a man who has no medical background and whose body language of always waving his hands in the air appears to me as hiding the truth behind his scheme.
I will publish a piece on Gates in two days which is personal. I do not like to attack people on a personal level. I think that is unprofessional. Unfortunately, this seems to be a war we are clearly in for the lives of our families as well as ourselves and our communities.


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--Meatpacking Monopoly Screwing Customers & Ranchers During Crisis w/Dylan Ratigan

Our local farmers are selling direct and it ’ s much better than store bought meat .

Our local farmers are selling direct and it’s much better than store bought meat.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
AC


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--Police Officer Speaks Out About What Is Coming If Police Continue To Ignore Constitution

Police Officer Compelled To Speak Out Against Tyrannical Enforcement Cop ’ s Urgent Appeal To Tyrant Police : “ What @ @ @ @ @ ?
!
” You need to stand for what is right !

Police Officer Compelled To Speak Out Against Tyrannical Enforcement Cop’s Urgent Appeal To Tyrant Police: “What Are You, The Gestapo?!” You need to stand for what is right!
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--UNEMPLOYMENT is NOW UP TO 33 MILLION!

UNEMPLOYMENT is NOW UP TO 33 MILLION!

Breaking News @ BreakingNews Another 3,160,000 Americans filed unemployment claims last week ; more than 33,000,000 have filed jobless claims @ @ @ @ @ .

Breaking News
@BreakingNews
Another 3,160,000 Americans filed unemployment claims last week; more than 33,000,000 have filed jobless claims in the past two months.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Another 3,160,000 Americans filed unemployment claims last week; more than 33,000,000 have filed jobless claims in the past two months. t.co/1yeguvcQ9h — Breaking News (@BreakingNews) May 7, 2020


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--FCC slaps Sinclair with $48 million record-breaking fine

Sinclair Broadcast Group , a conservative media giant , has agreed to pay a $ 48 million penalty to close @ @ @ @ @ In its announcement , the agency says it ’ s the largest civil penalty involving @ @ @ @ @ imposed — it ’ s also twice as big as the previous record ( $ @ @ @ @ @ Univision back in 2007 .
By agreeing to pay the penalty , Sinclair is settling @ @ @ @ @ into its disclosure of information regarding its proposed ( and failed ) merger with Tribune @ @ @ @ @ recall , the company , which already owns hundreds of TV stations , wanted to @ @ @ @ @ s 42 stations in a $ 3.9 billion deal .
The FCC raised concern about @ @ @ @ @ own way more stations than allowed even after Sinclair said it would sell some of @ @ @ @ @ , Tribune was snapped up by another media giant in an even bigger deal , @ @ @ @ @ misconduct and breach of contract .

Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative media giant, has agreed to pay a $48 million penalty to close three open FCC investigations. In its announcement, the agency says it’s the largest civil penalty involving a broadcaster it has ever imposed — it’s also twice as big as the previous record ($24 million) set by Univision back in 2007.
By agreeing to pay the penalty, Sinclair is settling the FCC’s probe into its disclosure of information regarding its proposed (and failed) merger with Tribune. If you’ll recall, the company, which already owns hundreds of TV stations, wanted to take over Tribune Media’s 42 stations in a $3.9 billion deal. The FCC raised concern about the fact that Sinclair would own way more stations than allowed even after Sinclair said it would sell some of them. In the end, Tribune was snapped up by another media giant in an even bigger deal, and it sued Sinclair for misconduct and breach of contract.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement:
www.engadget.com/fcc-sinclair-48-million-fine-024123244.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29kbGlrZXByb2R1Y3Rpb25zLmNvbS9mb3J1bTEvbWVzc2FnZTQzODE4NzkvcGcx&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACCTCmF0Nsuu6dNGvI8IDMOANlQrt5KiAMaWwcC7AU6AjZPqkTVmxz3MPx-iHbkWO_zPGeE_hplopxBHKueAlhRf4N_KZ_vNmzVn-yL07E4blU5uKsvz_uZI5eLuSXTFRrHrvvZvmR0ZDTdEKeFk–VhteIrATI_0HXE2zYW7CCm
AC


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--Wrenching And Immediate Jobs Problem, Just As Consumer Prices Must Rise

Charles Hugh Smith joins us today to discuss the economic reality on Main Street that ’ s totally disconnected from Wall Street .
From the abrupt loss of jobs , to a consumer that ’ s nowhere to be found and inflation ready to run rampant , here ’ s discussion about these unprecedented , dark times… Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds interviewed by Half Dollar of Silver Doctors Charles Hugh Smith joins us today to discuss the economic reality on Main Street that ’ s totally disconnected from Wall Street .
From the abrupt loss of jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nowhere to be found and inflation ready to run rampant , here ’ s robust discussion about these unprecedented , dark times… Some of the questions that developed during today ’ s discussion : How are things on the ground in Hawaii right now ?
How is the coronavirus is wreaking havoc on the US economy ?
The inflation-deflation debate seems to be coming back again , what ’ s the outlook for consumer prices ?
What does Charles see as far as a recovery in jobs ?
What are some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What does Charles think about the fiscal and monetary responses to the coronavirus so far ?
What ’ s on the radar as we move through Spring and into Summer ?
Check out the awesome writing , books and more from Charles Hugh Smith over at Of Two Minds here : www.oftwominds.com/blog.html Check out other Charles Hugh Smith articles , interviews and more at Silver Doctors here : www.silverdoctors.com/tag/charles-hugh-smith/ Check out Paul “ Half Dollar ” Eberhart ’ s work at Silver Doctors here : www.silverdoctors.com/tag/paul-eberhart/ And check out this and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you found this video useful , help us out in the fight for sound money by smashing that thumbs-up button , subscribing to our channel , and clicking the bell notification icon to be notified of new videos .

Charles Hugh Smith joins us today to discuss the economic reality on Main Street that’s totally disconnected from Wall Street. From the abrupt loss of jobs, to a consumer that’s nowhere to be found and inflation ready to run rampant, here’s discussion about these unprecedented, dark times…
Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds interviewed by Half Dollar of Silver Doctors
Charles Hugh Smith joins us today to discuss the economic reality on Main Street that’s totally disconnected from Wall Street. From the abrupt loss of jobs, to a consumer that’s nowhere to be found and inflation ready to run rampant, here’s robust discussion about these unprecedented, dark times…
Some of the questions that developed during today’s discussion:
How are things on the ground in Hawaii right now?
How is the coronavirus is wreaking havoc on the US economy?
The inflation-deflation debate seems to be coming back again, what’s the outlook for consumer prices?
What does Charles see as far as a recovery in jobs?
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
What are some of the things Charles sees with supply chain disruptions?
What does Charles think about the fiscal and monetary responses to the coronavirus so far?
What’s on the radar as we move through Spring and into Summer?
Check out the awesome writing, books and more from Charles Hugh Smith over at Of Two Minds here: www.oftwominds.com/blog.html
Check out other Charles Hugh Smith articles, interviews and more at Silver Doctors here: www.silverdoctors.com/tag/charles-hugh-smith/
Check out Paul “Half Dollar” Eberhart’s work at Silver Doctors here: www.silverdoctors.com/tag/paul-eberhart/
And check out this and other Silver Doctors podcasts here: www.silverdoctors.com/precious-metals-market-podcast/
If you found this video useful, help us out in the fight for sound money by smashing that thumbs-up button, subscribing to our channel, and clicking the bell notification icon to be notified of new videos.


investmentwatchblog--2020-05-07--Buffet, Bezos And Blackrock Are Betting Big On This $30 Trillion Mega-Trend

By the time giant high-tech , cash-burning companies like Uber catch on to the $ 30-trillion-plus mega trend of sustainable investing , their competition may have caught up .
Big money is shifting its capital to companies that are smart enough to figure out how to mitigate risks related to sustainability and climate crises , and still turn a profit .
Uber does neither .
But a new entrant on the high-tech mobility scene does .
A global pandemic has exposed the weaknesses of tradition and there ’ s no turning back .
That ’ s why sustainable investments wildly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world ’ s biggest hedge funds are betting trillions that this is the new path to profit .
Sustainability is now the name of the game , and nothing has made that clearer than COVID-19 .
This is the biggest “ Emperor ’ s New Clothes ” story in decades .
The pandemic has laid bare most major industry segments in the world , from oil and gas to travel and transportation–and not the least , ride-sharing , an explosive trend itself that is now getting a dose of the new reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing the way , an innovative high-tech mobility company such as Canada ’ s Facedrive ( TSX.V : FD ) has a good chance of grabbing a slice of Uber ’ s market share by turning ride-sharing into a sustainable industry .
Uber is neither profitable nor sustainable .
But Facedrive , plotting a pathway ahead of this trend , is positioning itself to be both .
How ?
By listening to Big Capital and turning environmental concern into the new industry gold standard .
More specifically , by transforming ride-sharing from one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon-neutral endeavor that offers riders a choice of EVs and hybrids and plants trees along the way to offset emissions for those riders who don ’ t make that choice .
How To Make Money Under Current Circumstances Not only will a company ’ s pandemic response be a major determinant of how they are graded in the future , but so will their response to every conceivable crisis the future may have in store , from climate change to another pandemic and everything in between .
Even before COVID-19 , sustainable funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pandemic simply proved up the trend and convinced big capital that this is where the smart money goes .
Between 2016 and 2109 , impact investing grew 34 % .
Since then , the surge has been “ skyward ” according to Nigel Green , CEO of the deVere Group .
“ Increasingly companies will only survive and thrive if they operate with a nod from the wider court of public approval .
It has underscored the complexity and interconnectedness of our world in terms of demand and supply , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be under threat if not sustainable , ” says Green .
That brings us full circle to Facedrive , and the masterminds behind this Canadian product of Ontario ’ s version of “ Silicon Valley ” , who latched onto the sustainability-as-profit model way back in 2016 when it was just emerging as a potential trend .
When they launched in 2019 in Canada , it was precisely at the time that sustainable investing was a solid mega-trend .
And now , amid a global pandemic , they are expanding–and , again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better .
COVID-19 has shown us exactly how deeply interconnected our basic systems of survival are , whether it ’ s to battle a virus or fight climate change .
For Facedrive , it ’ s about creating a profitable version of ride-sharing that recognizes mutually beneficial relations with communities , people , and the planet .
That means improving on Uber ’ s mandate .
That means bringing a solution to Uber ’ s biggest problems : Pollution without profit .
A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results in 69 % more pollution than whatever transportation option it displaced .
That ’ s a huge number , that scientists estimate is actually higher in densely populated areas .
In this age of green investing , this is a data-point that green-conscious customers everywhere are finding hard to swallow .
But now , they don ’ t have to .
With Facedrive , they can contribute to planting a tree every time they take a ride .
It gives consumers a choice they have never had before .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a decade only pushes the ESG investment thesis further .
A decade on and Uber is still only just hoping to achieve profitability in the fourth quarter of 2020 – also a year in which it will lose more than $ 1 billion .
It doesn ’ t pay to stubbornly resist the battle against climate change .
It pays to rush to the front line , as Facedrive has .
What ’ s changed is this : Under investor pressure , enough companies are beginning to figure out how to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t turning out to be the cash cow they thought it was .
If you can ’ t monetize it , then your $ 100 billion valuation dreams will never be realized .
Again , ask Uber .
Facedrive is already on the front lines of the COVID-19 battle , providing discounted rides for healthcare workers , developing the new TraceSCAN app to help keep communities and families safe by detecting instances of infection , and organizing a medical delivery service that keeps high-risk groups from unnecessary exposure .
And all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , battling climate change right along with coronavirus .
When the dust settles on this global pandemic , social responsibility , sustainability , good governance , and impact will be remembered most .
But there ’ s more money expected to be made here , post-COVID-19 .
Facedrive ’ s entire ecosystem is about revenue from the rider relationship .
It ’ s about more than just getting from Point A to Point B.
It ’ s about an all-inclusive experience–the only thing outside of sustainability and impact that attracts millennial investors these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it was always meant to be : A high-tech business , rather than just a taxi replacement .
That means everything from medicine and “ merch ” to short and long-distance mobility , healthy choice food deliveries , and much more .
It ’ s sustainability on wheels .
Will Smith , whose Bel Air Athletics clothing brand is betting that Facedrive is the ride of the future .
That ’ s why he ’ s co-branding an entire line of merch with Facedrive .
It ’ s also why WestBrook Inc. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife Jada Pinkett Smith , is partnering with this bold startup that is planning on expanding globally to challenge Uber for the throne .
Even better : It ’ s green and in line with Facedrive principles .
Not only is everything being made in North America , but the goal is to ensure by next year that all materials are 100 % sustainably sourced .
Some 1,000 new products co-branded by Bel Air and Facedrive are ready to launch , with pre-orders coming soon on the Facedrive website .
The company is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , timed for rapid deployment to the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic .
Facedrive Healthcare includes everything from discounted rides for healthcare workers and specialized vehicles for anyone with additional needs to contactless delivery of essential over-the-counter medicines and medical supplies , including high-tech management of automatic refills .
Facedrive Eats , which is now piloting in six cities in Ontario and is planning to expand to other regions soon .
For investors looking for the next big trend , this is it .
There ’ s money in mitigation , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s about people–with Millennials in the lead–finally realizing that climate change is a very real threat to our lives and livelihoods .
And big money follows the consumers because that ’ s where the profit is .
Pandemic risk increases as the planet heats up , and so does global financial instability , and they feed on each other .
Uber with its massive cash burn and its negative footprint , doesn ’ t align with the $ 30-trillion trend that is reshaping the investment world .
Facedrive does , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binge .
Other companies looking to capitalize on the $ 30 trillion sustainability push : Microsoft ( MSFT ) is a prime example of a company pushing sustainability into the center stage of its operations .
In fact , Microsoft is going above and beyond in its carbon emissions pledge .
It is aiming to be carbon neutral in the next decade .
Not only is the tech giant taking a leadership role in reducing its carbon emissions , but it is also at the forefront of a technological wave that is actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
Microsoft has created numerous resources to help monitor and evaluate the impact of different businesses on the environment , helping gather data to better understand where and how the world can improve .
Additionally , Microsoft is creating tools to better regulate the use of water and curb the world ’ s growing waste problems .
As the world ’ s leading solar and wind energy producer , NextEra Energy ( NEE ) is playing a pivotal role in the path towards sustainability .
In fact , in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investor in green energy infrastructure , and the fifth largest investor across all sectors .
In addition to its already massive impact on global climate change , it has a plan to invest another $ 55 billion in American energy infrastructure in the next two years .
All while maintaining a firm commitment to reduce its dependency on foreign oil .
Since 2001 , it has weaned itself off foreign oil almost completely , reporting a 98 % reduction over the past 20 years .
Even more enticing , however , is its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 15 years , shareholders have seen 945 % returns .
Even Big Oil can ’ t escape the investor pressure to go green .
And no other oil major takes this more seriously than Total ( TOT ) .
In fact , Total has pledged to work towards all of the United Nations ’ sustainability goals .
From the environment and climate to the people working with and impacted by its business , Total is taking the goals to heart .
Total checks every box in the ESG checklist .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive changes in its day to day operations to ensure that its business is environmentally sound , and has even committed to going carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner .
It ’ s no surprise that shareholders are loving its forward-thinking approach .
Other tech giants are getting involved , as well .
Both Facebook and Google have embarked on similar paths to Microsoft , with massive business-wide changes with the goal of becoming leaders in the sustainability space .
Facebook ( FB ) , for example , is taking an innovative approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ footprint .
It ’ s data centers are some of the most energy-efficient – and water-efficient – in the world .
And it ’ s only getting started .
By the end of 2020 , Facebook is aiming to have all of its data centers running on 100 % renewable energy .
Additionally , Facebook has committed to adding over 4.0 GW of renewable energy to the grid .
Facebook has even gone a step further with its focus on building more sustainable workplaces .
It ’ s building designs incorporate a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methods , in addition to promoting the recycling and sustainability of all products consumed on site .
Google ( GOOGL ) , for its part , is focused on raising the bar for smart use of the world ’ s resources .
Like Facebook , Google is creating sustainable , energy-efficient data centers and workplaces .
It is also leveraging artificial intelligence to develop more sustainable energy use .
Google is also focused on creating a sustainable supply chain .
It is committed to improving the lives of everyone connected to its products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Additionally , it is actively reducing its environmental impact by working with suppliers to provide them with the tools they need to become more energy efficient .
Canadian companies are doing their part as well : Take telecom giant Shaw Communications Inc ( TSE : SJR.B ) , for example .
Shaw is taking a leadership role among Canadian telecom providers through its use of renewable energy , In fact , it is one of the biggest customers of Bullfrog Power which sources its electricity from a blend of wind energy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own portfolio of clean energy investments .
BCE Inc ( TSX : BCE ) ) is another Canadian telecom giant going to great lengths to reduce its carbon footprint .
For the past 25 years , BCE has been at the forefront of the environmental movement .
Their environmental management system ( EMS ) has been certified to be ISO 14001-compliant since 2009 .
Boralex Inc. ( TSX : BLX ) is a homegrown Canadian renewable firm .
It has had a great influence in the adoption of renewable electricity domestically , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , France and the United Kingdom .
The company ’ s primary energies are produced through wind , hydroelectric , thermal and solar sources and help power the homes of many people across the world .
Polaris Infrastructure ( TSX : PIF ) is another renewable firm taking a slightly more focused approach .
The company ’ s biggest projects are in Latin America .
It ’ s Nicaragua geothermal project , for example , is already producing over 77 MW of renewable electricity .
And in Peru , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants , is set to produce a combined 17MW of electricity in the near future .
Westport Fuel Systems ( TSX : WPRT ) is a renewable energy provider for the transportation industry .
it provides systems for less impactful fuels , such as natural gas .
In North America alone , there are over 225,000 natural gas vehicles .
But that ’ s nothing compared to the global number of natural gas vehicles , which total over 22.5 million .
**IMPORTANT !
BY READING OUR CONTENT YOU EXPLICITLY AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward-looking information which is subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements .
Forward looking statements in this publication include that the demand for ride sharing services will grow ; that the demand for environmentally conscientious ride sharing services companies in particular will grow and take a larger share of the market ; that Facedrive ’ s marketplace will offer many more sustainable goods and services , and grow revenues outside of ride-sharing ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without sacrificing profit ; that Facedrive Eats will expand to other regions outside southern Ontario soon ; that Facedrive will be able to fund its capital requirements in the near term and long term ; and that Facedrive will be able to carry out its business plan .
These forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking information .
Risks that could change or prevent these statements from coming to fruition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company ’ s ability to obtain and retain necessary licensing in each geographical area in which it operates ; the success of the company ’ s expansion activities and whether markets justify additional expansion ; the ability of the company to attract a sufficient number of drivers to meet the demands of customer riders ; the ability of the company to attract drivers who have electric vehicles and hybrid cars ; the ability of Facedrive to attract providers of good and services for partnerships on terms acceptable to both parties , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability of the company to keep operating costs and customer charges competitive with other ride-hailing companies ; and the company ’ s ability to continue agreements on affordable terms with existing or new tree planting enterprises in order to retain profits .
The forward-looking information contained herein is given as of the date hereof and we assume no responsibility to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances , except as required by law .
ADVERTISEMENT .
This communication is not a recommendation to buy or sell securities .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solutions Ltd , and their owners , managers , employees , and assigns ( collectively “ the Company ” ) has signed an agreement to be paid in shares to provide services to expand ridership and attract drivers in certain jurisdictions outside Canada and the United States .
In addition , the owner of Oilprice.com has acquired additional shares of Facedrive ( TSX : FD.V ) for personal investment .
This compensation and share acquisition resulting in the beneficial owner of the Company having a major share position in FD.V is a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more specifically : This communication is for entertainment purposes only .
Never invest purely based on our communication .
Therefore , this communication should be viewed as a commercial advertisement only .
We have not investigated the background of the featured company .
Frequently companies profiled in our alerts experience a large increase in volume and share price during the course of investor awareness marketing , which often end as soon as the investor awareness marketing ceases .
The information in our communications and on our website has not been independently verified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
SHARE OWNERSHIP .
The owner of Oilprice.com owns shares of this featured company and therefore has a substantial incentive to see the featured company ’ s stock perform well .
The owner of Oilprice.com will not notify the market when it decides to buy more or sell shares of this issuer in the market .
The owner of Oilprice.com will be buying and selling shares of this issuer for its own profit .
This is why we stress that you conduct extensive due diligence as well as seek the advice of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investing in any securities .
NOT AN INVESTMENT ADVISOR .
The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation .
ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and consult with a licensed investment professional before making an investment .
This communication should not be used as a basis for making any investment .
RISK OF INVESTING .
Investing is inherently risky .
Don ’ t trade with money you can ’ t afford to lose .
This is neither a solicitation nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representation is being made that any stock acquisition will or is likely to achieve profits .
Disclaimer : This information is only for educational purposes .
Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article .
Do you own due diligence .

By Ian Jenkins
By the time giant high-tech, cash-burning companies like Uber catch on to the $30-trillion-plus mega trend of sustainable investing, their competition may have caught up.
Big money is shifting its capital to companies that are smart enough to figure out how to mitigate risks related to sustainability and climate crises, and still turn a profit.
Uber does neither. But a new entrant on the high-tech mobility scene does.
A global pandemic has exposed the weaknesses of tradition and there’s no turning back. That’s why sustainable investments wildly outperformed conventional in Q1 2020, and the world’s biggest hedge funds are betting trillions that this is the new path to profit.
Sustainability is now the name of the game, and nothing has made that clearer than COVID-19. This is the biggest “Emperor’s New Clothes” story in decades.
The pandemic has laid bare most major industry segments in the world, from oil and gas to travel and transportation–and not the least, ride-sharing, an explosive trend itself that is now getting a dose of the new reality.
With $30 trillion and counting pointing the way, an innovative high-tech mobility company such as Canada’s Facedrive (TSX.V:FD) has a good chance of grabbing a slice of Uber’s market share by turning ride-sharing into a sustainable industry.
Uber is neither profitable nor sustainable.
But Facedrive, plotting a pathway ahead of this trend, is positioning itself to be both.
How? By listening to Big Capital and turning environmental concern into the new industry gold standard.
More specifically, by transforming ride-sharing from one of the worst polluters into a more carbon-neutral endeavor that offers riders a choice of EVs and hybrids and plants trees along the way to offset emissions for those riders who don’t make that choice.
How To Make Money Under Current Circumstances
Not only will a company’s pandemic response be a major determinant of how they are graded in the future, but so will their response to every conceivable crisis the future may have in store, from climate change to another pandemic and everything in between.
Even before COVID-19, sustainable funds were outperforming their conventional counterparts throughout 2019. The pandemic simply proved up the trend and convinced big capital that this is where the smart money goes.
Between 2016 and 2109, impact investing grew 34%. Since then, the surge has been “skyward” according to Nigel Green, CEO of the deVere Group.
“Increasingly companies will only survive and thrive if they operate with a nod from the wider court of public approval. It has underscored the complexity and interconnectedness of our world in terms of demand and supply, in trade and commerce – and how these can be under threat if not sustainable,” says Green.
That brings us full circle to Facedrive, and the masterminds behind this Canadian product of Ontario’s version of “Silicon Valley”, who latched onto the sustainability-as-profit model way back in 2016 when it was just emerging as a potential trend.
When they launched in 2019 in Canada, it was precisely at the time that sustainable investing was a solid mega-trend.
And now, amid a global pandemic, they are expanding–and, again, the timing couldn’t be better. COVID-19 has shown us exactly how deeply interconnected our basic systems of survival are, whether it’s to battle a virus or fight climate change.
For Facedrive, it’s about creating a profitable version of ride-sharing that recognizes mutually beneficial relations with communities, people, and the planet. That means improving on Uber’s mandate. That means bringing a solution to Uber’s biggest problems: Pollution without profit.
A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the average (U.S.) ride-hailing trip results in 69% more pollution than whatever transportation option it displaced.
That’s a huge number, that scientists estimate is actually higher in densely populated areas. In this age of green investing, this is a data-point that green-conscious customers everywhere are finding hard to swallow. But now, they don’t have to. With Facedrive, they can contribute to planting a tree every time they take a ride. It gives consumers a choice they have never had before.
The fact that Uber hasn’t made a dime in a decade only pushes the ESG investment thesis further. A decade on and Uber is still only just hoping to achieve profitability in the fourth quarter of 2020 – also a year in which it will lose more than $1 billion.
It doesn’t pay to stubbornly resist the battle against climate change. It pays to rush to the front line, as Facedrive has.
Monetizing Sustainability: The Holy Grail
What’s changed is this: Under investor pressure, enough companies are beginning to figure out how to make sustainability profitable because lack of sustainability isn’t turning out to be the cash cow they thought it was.
If you can’t monetize it, then your $100 billion valuation dreams will never be realized. Again, ask Uber.
Facedrive is already on the front lines of the COVID-19 battle, providing discounted rides for healthcare workers, developing the new TraceSCAN app to help keep communities and families safe by detecting instances of infection, and organizing a medical delivery service that keeps high-risk groups from unnecessary exposure.
And all the while, it’s planting trees, battling climate change right along with coronavirus.
When the dust settles on this global pandemic, social responsibility, sustainability, good governance, and impact will be remembered most.
But there’s more money expected to be made here, post-COVID-19. Facedrive’s entire ecosystem is about revenue from the rider relationship. It’s about more than just getting from Point A to Point B. It’s about an all-inclusive experience–the only thing outside of sustainability and impact that attracts millennial investors these days.
This is where ride-sharing becomes what it was always meant to be: A high-tech business, rather than just a taxi replacement.
That means everything from medicine and “merch” to short and long-distance mobility, healthy choice food deliveries, and much more. It’s sustainability on wheels.
Will Smith, whose Bel Air Athletics clothing brand is betting that Facedrive is the ride of the future. That’s why he’s co-branding an entire line of merch with Facedrive.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
It’s also why WestBrook Inc., the company he shares with his wife Jada Pinkett Smith, is partnering with this bold startup that is planning on expanding globally to challenge Uber for the throne.
Even better: It’s green and in line with Facedrive principles. Not only is everything being made in North America, but the goal is to ensure by next year that all materials are 100% sustainably sourced.
Some 1,000 new products co-branded by Bel Air and Facedrive are ready to launch, with pre-orders coming soon on the Facedrive website.
The company is also rolling out a comprehensive health initiative, timed for rapid deployment to the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic. Facedrive Healthcare includes everything from discounted rides for healthcare workers and specialized vehicles for anyone with additional needs to contactless delivery of essential over-the-counter medicines and medical supplies, including high-tech management of automatic refills.
Facedrive Eats, which is now piloting in six cities in Ontario and is planning to expand to other regions soon.
For investors looking for the next big trend, this is it. There’s money in mitigation, and it has nothing to do with politics.
It’s about people–with Millennials in the lead–finally realizing that climate change is a very real threat to our lives and livelihoods. And big money follows the consumers because that’s where the profit is. Pandemic risk increases as the planet heats up, and so does global financial instability, and they feed on each other.
Uber with its massive cash burn and its negative footprint, doesn’t align with the $30-trillion trend that is reshaping the investment world. Facedrive does, and it’s on a sustainable monetization binge.
Other companies looking to capitalize on the $30 trillion sustainability push:
Microsoft (MSFT) is a prime example of a company pushing sustainability into the center stage of its operations. In fact, Microsoft is going above and beyond in its carbon emissions pledge. It is aiming to be carbon neutral in the next decade. Not only is the tech giant taking a leadership role in reducing its carbon emissions, but it is also at the forefront of a technological wave that is actively helping other companies curb their emissions, as well.
Microsoft has created numerous resources to help monitor and evaluate the impact of different businesses on the environment, helping gather data to better understand where and how the world can improve. Additionally, Microsoft is creating tools to better regulate the use of water and curb the world’s growing waste problems.
As the world’s leading solar and wind energy producer, NextEra Energy (NEE) is playing a pivotal role in the path towards sustainability. In fact, in 2018, the company was the number one capital investor in green energy infrastructure, and the fifth largest investor across all sectors.
In addition to its already massive impact on global climate change, it has a plan to invest another $55 billion in American energy infrastructure in the next two years. All while maintaining a firm commitment to reduce its dependency on foreign oil. Since 2001, it has weaned itself off foreign oil almost completely, reporting a 98% reduction over the past 20 years. Even more enticing, however, is its commitment to building shareholder value. Over the past 15 years, shareholders have seen 945% returns.
Even Big Oil can’t escape the investor pressure to go green. And no other oil major takes this more seriously than Total (TOT). In fact, Total has pledged to work towards all of the United Nations’ sustainability goals. From the environment and climate to the people working with and impacted by its business, Total is taking the goals to heart.
Total checks every box in the ESG checklist. It is promoting diversity and safety, making massive changes in its day to day operations to ensure that its business is environmentally sound, and has even committed to going carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner. It’s no surprise that shareholders are loving its forward-thinking approach.
Other tech giants are getting involved, as well. Both Facebook and Google have embarked on similar paths to Microsoft, with massive business-wide changes with the goal of becoming leaders in the sustainability space.
Facebook (FB), for example, is taking an innovative approach in its vision to reduce its carbon footprint. It’s data centers are some of the most energy-efficient – and water-efficient – in the world. And it’s only getting started. By the end of 2020, Facebook is aiming to have all of its data centers running on 100% renewable energy. Additionally, Facebook has committed to adding over 4.0 GW of renewable energy to the grid.
Facebook has even gone a step further with its focus on building more sustainable workplaces. It’s building designs incorporate a number of renewable energy sources and water recycling methods, in addition to promoting the recycling and sustainability of all products consumed on site.
Google (GOOGL), for its part, is focused on raising the bar for smart use of the world’s resources. Like Facebook, Google is creating sustainable, energy-efficient data centers and workplaces. It is also leveraging artificial intelligence to develop more sustainable energy use.
Google is also focused on creating a sustainable supply chain. It is committed to improving the lives of everyone connected to its products, from miners to drivers and beyond. Additionally, it is actively reducing its environmental impact by working with suppliers to provide them with the tools they need to become more energy efficient.
Canadian companies are doing their part as well:
Take telecom giant Shaw Communications Inc (TSE:SJR.B), for example. Shaw is taking a leadership role among Canadian telecom providers through its use of renewable energy, In fact, it is one of the biggest customers of Bullfrog Power which sources its electricity from a blend of wind energy and hydropower. It is also building its own portfolio of clean energy investments.
BCE Inc (TSX:BCE)) is another Canadian telecom giant going to great lengths to reduce its carbon footprint. For the past 25 years, BCE has been at the forefront of the environmental movement. Their environmental management system (EMS) has been certified to be ISO 14001-compliant since 2009.
Boralex Inc. (TSX:BLX) is a homegrown Canadian renewable firm. It has had a great influence in the adoption of renewable electricity domestically, and it’s even branching out into the United States, France and the United Kingdom. The company’s primary energies are produced through wind, hydroelectric, thermal and solar sources and help power the homes of many people across the world.
Polaris Infrastructure (TSX:PIF) is another renewable firm taking a slightly more focused approach. The company’s biggest projects are in Latin America. It’s Nicaragua geothermal project, for example, is already producing over 77 MW of renewable electricity. And in Peru, its El Carmen and 8 de Augusto power plants, is set to produce a combined 17MW of electricity in the near future.
Westport Fuel Systems (TSX:WPRT) is a renewable energy provider for the transportation industry. it provides systems for less impactful fuels, such as natural gas. In North America alone, there are over 225,000 natural gas vehicles. But that’s nothing compared to the global number of natural gas vehicles, which total over 22.5 million.
My Ian Jenkins
**IMPORTANT! BY READING OUR CONTENT YOU EXPLICITLY AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY**
Forward-Looking Statements
This publication contains forward-looking information which is subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements in this publication include that the demand for ride sharing services will grow; that the demand for environmentally conscientious ride sharing services companies in particular will grow and take a larger share of the market; that Facedrive’s marketplace will offer many more sustainable goods and services, and grow revenues outside of ride-sharing; that Facedrive can achieve its environmental goals without sacrificing profit; that Facedrive Eats will expand to other regions outside southern Ontario soon; that Facedrive will be able to fund its capital requirements in the near term and long term; and that Facedrive will be able to carry out its business plan. These forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking information. Risks that could change or prevent these statements from coming to fruition include changing governmental laws and policies; the company’s ability to obtain and retain necessary licensing in each geographical area in which it operates; the success of the company’s expansion activities and whether markets justify additional expansion; the ability of the company to attract a sufficient number of drivers to meet the demands of customer riders; the ability of the company to attract drivers who have electric vehicles and hybrid cars; the ability of Facedrive to attract providers of good and services for partnerships on terms acceptable to both parties, and on profitable terms for Facedrive; the ability of the company to keep operating costs and customer charges competitive with other ride-hailing companies; and the company’s ability to continue agreements on affordable terms with existing or new tree planting enterprises in order to retain profits. The forward-looking information contained herein is given as of the date hereof and we assume no responsibility to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances, except as required by law.
DISCLAIMERS
ADVERTISEMENT. This communication is not a recommendation to buy or sell securities. An affiliated company of Oilprice.com, Advanced Media Solutions Ltd, and their owners, managers, employees, and assigns (collectively “the Company”) has signed an agreement to be paid in shares to provide services to expand ridership and attract drivers in certain jurisdictions outside Canada and the United States. In addition, the owner of Oilprice.com has acquired additional shares of Facedrive (TSX:FD.V) for personal investment. This compensation and share acquisition resulting in the beneficial owner of the Company having a major share position in FD.V is a major conflict with our ability to be unbiased, more specifically:
This communication is for entertainment purposes only. Never invest purely based on our communication. Therefore, this communication should be viewed as a commercial advertisement only. We have not investigated the background of the featured company. Frequently companies profiled in our alerts experience a large increase in volume and share price during the course of investor awareness marketing, which often end as soon as the investor awareness marketing ceases. The information in our communications and on our website has not been independently verified and is not guaranteed to be correct.
SHARE OWNERSHIP. The owner of Oilprice.com owns shares of this featured company and therefore has a substantial incentive to see the featured company’s stock perform well. The owner of Oilprice.com will not notify the market when it decides to buy more or sell shares of this issuer in the market. The owner of Oilprice.com will be buying and selling shares of this issuer for its own profit. This is why we stress that you conduct extensive due diligence as well as seek the advice of your financial advisor or a registered broker-dealer before investing in any securities.
NOT AN INVESTMENT ADVISOR. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and consult with a licensed investment professional before making an investment. This communication should not be used as a basis for making any investment.
RISK OF INVESTING. Investing is inherently risky. Don’t trade with money you can’t afford to lose. This is neither a solicitation nor an offer to Buy/Sell securities. No representation is being made that any stock acquisition will or is likely to achieve profits.
Disclaimer: This information is only for educational purposes. Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article. Do you own due diligence.