Dec 202024
 
 December 20, 2024  Posted by at 10:27 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  62 Responses »


Jan van Eyck Madonna and Child at the Fountain 1439 (height: 7 . 4 “, 19cm)

 

Trump-Backed Funding Bill Fails House Vote As 38 Republicans Say ‘No’ (ZH)
Trump and Musk Sink US Government Spending Bill (RT)
DOGE Insider: ‘A Lot of Stuff Ready For Day One’ (ZH)
A Very Different Transition (Jeffrey A. Tucker)
Trump Notches Several Court Victories On Eve Of Return To The White House (JTN)
Georgia Appellate Court Disqualifies Fani Willis (Turley)
Top Editors Stiff WashPost (Axios)
Trump Confronts a Rising China (Michael Klare)
Putin Says He Hasn’t Spoken To Trump For More Than Four Years (RT)
Putin Challenges West To ‘Technological Duel’ With Oreshnik (RT)
Russia’s Invincible Oreshnik Has Left West in The Dust – Ex-DoD Analyst (Sp.)
‘Deeply Immoral’ Anglo-Americans Sabotaged Ukraine Peace – Ex-Swiss Envoy (RT)
It’s The Biolabs, Stupid: Is This Why Ukraine Murdered A Russian General?
EU Suffers By Suppressing National Identities – Putin (RT)
Russia Expresses Concern Over Gaza ‘Recolonization’ (RT)
US Plans to Sell Off Syria’s Wealth After Assad (Klarenberg)
Russia Owes Growing Economic Strength to West’s ‘Sanctions on Steroids’ (Sp.)

 

 

 

 

Sachs

Tom Homan

Lala

Sen. Kennedy

Watters Biden

Durbin

Jennings

O’Leary
https://twitter.com/i/status/1869549028200808482

 

 

 

 

“There are probably dozens of Republicans who have never voted for raising the debt ceiling. Now Trump is forcing them to do so.”

Trump-Backed Funding Bill Fails House Vote As 38 Republicans Say ‘No’ (ZH)

Update (1752ET): The first vote to kick the can down the road until 2027 has failed the House, by a vote of 174-235-1, with 38 Republicans voting ‘no’. The bill required 2/3 of the vote under a fast-track method, yet didn’t even clear a simple majority. Polymarket odds of a shutdown have spiked to 76% as of this writing * * * Update (1752ET): In what comes as a surprise to nobody, Democrats want their pork – and have said “Hell no” to the massively reduced spending package that Mike Johnson rolled out after conferring with the Trump team. “The Musk-Johnson proposal is not serious. It’s laughable. Extreme MAGA Republicans are driving us to a government shutdown,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters as he walked into a closed-door caucus meeting Thursday afternoon. In short, it’s doomed. “I’m not simply a no. I’m a hell no,” Jeffries then said at the closed-door meeting, Politico reports, citing three people familiar with the meeting.

[..] With Friday’s government shutdown looming – and odds spiking after everyone figured out that the 1,547-page Continuing Resolution (CR) was full of Orwellian bullshit and other malarkey, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has gone to Donald Trumps team with hat in hand. The new plan will be a federal funding stopgap plan that includes disaster aid, pushing off the debt limit fight for two years, and a one-year farm bill extension, Politico reports, citing Republicans familiar with the discussions. No word on how close this comes to a “clean” bill, or how much of the aforementioned bullshit is gone – such as funding the Global Engagement Center, shielding the Jan. 6 committee from subpoenas, and funding new biolabs, but we guess we’ll find out. Also unknown is whether Democrats will support the plan.

“But Trump had made an 11th hour public demand that any stopgap bill should deal with the debt limit. Trump’s team is pushing for at least a commitment to lift the debt limit before Jan. 20. The level of disaster aid and whether it’s completely paid for is still unclear. The package would also likely include some additional economic aid for farmers, amid threats from rural Republicans to oppose any stopgap that doesn’t include the funding”. -Politico. In a closed door meeting on Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told Democratic lawmakers: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate,” citing JFK. Polymarkets odds of a government shutdown went from 15% yesterday to 49% this morning. According to Punchbowl News, here’s what happened, and what’s next;

At some point today, House Republicans and Democrats will likely have separate party meetings to chart their path forward. Democrats have announced their meeting for 9 a.m. We’ll talk more about them below. But make no mistake — this is Johnson and Trump’s mess to solve. And we’re inching toward a shutdown as government funding runs out at midnight Friday. Johnson was mostly MIA Wednesday, holed up in his Capitol office for hours without showing his face. Even the House GOP leadership team felt like they were being kept in the dark about what was happening. Late in the evening, Johnson met with Vance, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Rules Committee Chair Michael Burgess (R-Texas). Jordan and Roy are conservative hardliners. Diaz-Balart is a senior appropriator.

As Scalise left around 10 p.m., he told reporters “We’re not there yet” when asked whether the debt-limit boost would be part of any new government-funding plan. “A lot of things have come up,” Scalise added.A somewhat obvious play may be a funding bill with a two-year debt-limit extension. Why? Because Trump supports increasing the debt limit now. Given how volatile Trump was during his first term, there’s no guarantee he’ll do this again. (For what it’s worth, Biden administration officials estimate the debt limit won’t be reached until sometime next summer. GOP leaders were planning to handle it in a reconciliation bill). Trump is giving Johnson cover for the time being. It’s limited, however. Because Trump, once again, has put his party in a bind. There are probably dozens of Republicans who have never voted for raising the debt ceiling. Now Trump is forcing them to do so.

Read more …

“If Democrats threaten to shut down the government unless we give them everything they want, then CALL THEIR BLUFF..”

Trump and Musk Sink US Government Spending Bill (RT)

The US government is facing a partial shutdown after a stopgap spending bill pitched by lawmakers earlier this week was scrapped under pressure from President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The current funding expires on Friday, and unless a bill is passed before that deadline, millions of US federal workers will be left without paychecks. The text of the new spending plan, known as a continuing resolution (CR), was released on Tuesday just days before the deadline. The package largely provides for the government to continue to spend at current levels for the next three months, giving the newly elected Congress time to work on more permanent federal funding. The 1,547-page bill includes a pay raise for lawmakers, $100 billion for disaster relief funding and $10 billion in economic assistance for farmers, numerous provisions including foreign investment restrictions and new health care policies, among other authorizations.

US Republicans balked at the proposed package right after its release, slamming it as being too bloated and full of Democratic policy priorities. Tesla and SpaceX owner Elon Musk – pitched by Trump as the head of his new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a panel charged with finding ways to slash federal spending – launched an entire campaign against the package on X. “This bill should not pass,” Musk wrote early on Wednesday, repeatedly posting different versions of this call throughout the day and late into the night, making a total of more than 60 updates. He decried the bill as “criminal,” “outrageous,” “unconscionable,” and ultimately “one of the worst bills ever written.” Musk’s tirade sparked a virtual flashmob of disapproving statements regarding the bill, which culminated with condemnation by Donald Trump, who called it full of “Democrat giveaways.”

“Republicans must GET SMART and TOUGH. If Democrats threaten to shut down the government unless we give them everything they want, then CALL THEIR BLUFF,” he said in a joint statement with Vice President-elect JD Vance, posted on his TruthSocial account. Many observers noted that it was unusual for the incoming president and his team to tip the scales on legislation before officially coming into power. CNN and The Washington Post reported late on Wednesday that the bill had been killed, with Musk confirming it in yet another post on X.

“Your elected representatives have heard you, and now the terrible bill is dead. The voice of the people has triumphed!” he wrote, adding in another post that “no bills should be passed Congress until January 20,” when Trump takes office. It is currently unclear whether House Speaker Mike Johnson, who spearheaded the failed bill, will be able to come up with an alternative before Friday’s deadline. According to The Hill’s sources, Johnson could propose a “clean” CR, which would entail dropping the additional provisions included in the package, such as disaster aid and assistance for farmers. However, Johnson has not yet scheduled a vote on the bill.

Read more …

“What can we do right now, and then what can we do next? Let’s just focus on what we can do right now.”

DOGE Insider: ‘A Lot of Stuff Ready For Day One’ (ZH)

Billionaire entrepreneur and investor Joe Lonsdale expressed strong optimism for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative during his appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show. The Palantir co-founder highlighted the “very bold” reforms being planned by co-heads Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, revealing that the DOGE team is already hard at work on strategic priorities. With over 100 people on board, the team is preparing to enact immediate changes, including staff removals and regulatory rollbacks.

SHAWN RYAN: We’re both pretty fired up about the [Trump administration]. Who are you most excited about? Do you have anybody in particular?

JOE LONSDALE: I’m most excited about Elon, Vivek and the DOGE effort because this is something I’ve wanted to see for forever. I’m probably like one of the only guys in tech that’s done a lot in policy on the right, on the small government side for the last 10-20 years, and it’s like the world just shifted this way—like the vibe shift is exactly in line with stuff I’ve been thinking and talking about for a decade. I’m so excited about this.

SHAWN RYAN: How fast do you think they’re going to start cleaning this stuff up?

JOE LONSDALE: They’re already doing it, man. They can’t really officially do it yet, but they’re already making all the plans. There’s people working hard there. There’s guys picking me, ‘Joe, we need another engineer for this,’ ‘We’re trying to map this out,’ ‘We need more lawyers for this. They’re going right now as hard as they can and getting ready. It’s going to be really bold. I think the way Elon works in general is just like, “What can we do right now, and then what can we do next? Let’s just focus on what we can do right now.” So they have what’s called their ‘Day One priorities,’ and they’re just focusing and sprinting on everything they could do day one. I think they’re going to have a lot of stuff ready for day one.

They’re bringing in at least well over 100 people for the DOGE effort, and they’re going to put a few of them directly into each agency. A lot of the transition team itself is hiring people to put into these jobs. There’s these policy placements that are all working with DOGE and being liaisons with DOGE. They’re going to come out of the gate with a bunch of general things—removing certain people, removing certain regulations. I can’t go into the details exactly of what they’re going to be doing, but it’s going to be really aggressive right from the start.” Meanwhile, Lonsdale stressed the need to rebuild America’s manufacturing base.

“I’m concerned in general that we don’t have an advanced manufacturing base that’s nearly as big as it needs to be. I think from a geopolitical perspective it’s extremely dangerous and if we want to be ready—so in World War II it wasn’t that we had like a bunch of big defense contractors that we had a bunch of big industrial manufacturers and powers that were able to be shifted to do things for the war.” “If we’ve basically gotten rid of a lot of that base and we need it back if we want to defend ourselves. So I think Trump is very good on this; he shifted it back. I think even his first term actually kind of turned the whole conversation in our country where a lot of people on both sides now agree we need to fix this. But this is where the tariffs against China, if they’re done correctly, are not totally insane at all. It makes a lot of sense to me,” he continued.

Read more …

“.. it makes no sense for the machinery that the incoming administration wants to overthrow to be in charge of the transition..”

A Very Different Transition (Jeffrey A. Tucker)

The transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump in 2016 went like every other presidential transition in modern history. The old administration had extended meetings with the new, and old agency heads and their staff trained the new ones. It was managed by Chris Christie and then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence. It was funded by the General Services Administration and the incoming team received emergency drills, confidential documents, security briefings, and training sessions on emergency protocols. The FBI was brought on board to vet all new hires. That’s because the incoming administration believed that the system worked. It had won and therefore would be in charge. That’s how it is supposed to work in the United States. The idea of this process is to ensure continuity in government from one administration to the other.

In normal times, all of this would be a good idea. The Founders set up a structural system of government with minimal functions, stable law, checks and balances, and established elections for president every four years to ensure that the chief executive served with the people’s consent. Most functions of government were handled by the states, in any case. There was never supposed to be a need for a fundamental regime change. We merely changed administrators and members of Congress. The rest was supposed to take care of itself, which is why it would seem to make sense that the old administration trains the new one, and a permanent staff of experts and civil service employees helps the new kids learn the ropes from those with experience. And yet here we are. The Trump administration’s mandate from voters is not just for a change in personnel.

The mandate is in fact for fundamental regime change within the framework of democracy. The administrative state, which is nowhere found in the Constitution, has over time developed far more power than elected leaders. That absolutely must change, as voters made clear in November 2024. It was yet another case, just like in 2016, of the candidate winning whom nearly the whole of mainstream media believed would not win, and of the whole of what anyone would call the establishment disfavoring the result. The victory was so overwhelming as to amount to a primal scream against government as usual. In this case, it makes no sense for the machinery that the incoming administration wants to overthrow to be in charge of the transition. Remember that this is not Team Trump’s first rodeo. Last time, it went along with all the protocols, funding, systems, and sessions.

The White House staff members went through day after day of lectures from government experts on how Washington works. They sat through intelligence briefings. They were schooled in protocols for the management of nuclear war, biological warfare, natural disasters, and pandemics. They put up with all the PowerPoint presentations, exhortations, manuals, lists, and introductions to people who really run the government. They assumed that once the president was sworn in, he would in fact be the president and those whom he appointed would be in charge.

[..] After leaving office in January 2021, the Trump team went to work trying to figure out what the heck had happened in the first term to cause everything to go so wrong, or, more specifically, what enabled the administration’s authority to be so thoroughly subverted from within. It concluded that the real problem began with the transition itself. That was when the permanent bureaucracy first asserted its power over the incoming administration. That’s when the deep state got its hooks in. This time, the team has a very different plan. It is being managed by trusted members of Trump’s inner circle. They have not allowed the General Services Administration to manage any aspect of the transition. They have done this by refusing to accept any money from any government source.

Instead, the transition has been entirely privately funded, with methods deployed to make sure that the funding sources are not tainted by deep state contacts. The explicit purpose has been to avoid subversion. It’s been the same with FBI vetting. The incoming Trump administration simply does not trust the process and for good reason. It was the FBI that had spied on the campaign and even raided Trump’s own home. Furthermore, it worked with other agencies to deploy myriad forms of lawfare for years.

This transition is without precedent. The permanent staff of government itself only became the U.S. norm starting in 1883, and it has grown every decade since. At some point in the past, the elected leaders became more like decorations than real rulers of government. The Trump administration cannot achieve its objectives with this status quo. This is the reason for this very different transition. It is a good sign and symbol of what might be coming. We might in fact experience a much-needed change of regime in Washington through exactly the system and process that the Founding Fathers set up. The second term of Trump seems determined to avoid repeating the obvious errors of the last time around.

Read more …

“..even some Democrats are even admitting that the slew of legal cases against him were either unfounded or a strategic blunder..”

Trump Notches Several Court Victories On Eve Of Return To The White House (JTN)

The legal system has been very good to Donald Trump as he prepares to return to the White House, removing perceived enemies as prosecutors, dismissing charges and even awarding defamation damages. A Georgia appeals court decision to disqualify Fani Willis, the anti-Donald Trump Fulton County district attorney from prosecuting an election interference case against the once and future president marks only the latest victory for Trump in lawfare battles since the 2020 election. Recently, Trump also obtained a $15 million defamation settlement from ABC News after an anchor inaccurately and repeatedly claimed he was found civilly liable for “raping” E. Jean Carroll. The New York Post reported that George Stephanopoulos was repeatedly told by his executive producer not to “use the word ‘rape’” before going on the air to discuss Donald Trump but the ABC News anchor ignored the warning.

Early on in the Republican primary, Trump had to grapple with five cases brought by state and federal prosecutors that tied the former president to courtrooms as the election season kicked off. Now, with Trump still standing as the president-elect for the second time, the state-level cases appear to be embroiled in death throes and delays while the Justice Department’s special prosecutor moved last month to dismiss the two pending federal cases. As the cases die down and Trump prepares to take office in January, even some Democrats are even admitting that the slew of legal cases against him were either unfounded or a strategic blunder. “The Trump hush money and Hunter Biden cases were both bullshit, and pardons are appropriate,” Senator John Fetterman, D-Penn., wrote in his first post to Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

“Weaponizing the judiciary for blatant, partisan gain diminishes the collective faith in our institutions and sows further division,” he continued. Before the election, former Democratic presidential candidate and Congressman Dean Philipps called on New York Governor Kathy Hochul to pardon Trump in his state cases “for the good of the country.” Trump latest win came in the Georgia election interference case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. On Thursday, an appeals court ruled that Willis and her deputies should be disqualified from prosecuting Trump due to the “appearance of impropriety.” “We reverse the trial court’s denial of the appellants’ motion to disqualify DA Willis and her office. As we conclude that the elected district attorney is wholly disqualified from this case the assistant district attorneys — whose only power to prosecute a case is derived from the constitutional authority of the district attorney who appointed them — have no authority to proceed,” the Georgia appeals court wrote in the decision.

During several hearings on the case, Willis faced accusations of financial mismanagement and of carrying on an improper relationship with her chief prosecutor on the case, Nathan Wade. The Fulton DA also laid the groundwork for prosecuting Trump before she had even taken office, according to Wade’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year. The judges wrote that the “remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.” This decision indicates that the proceedings in the case are likely to drag out even longer, already significantly delayed by the Willis accusations. Trump and his co-defendants have raised several other legal challenges on appeal including over the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.

Read more …

“The case against Trump was deeply flawed. It read like a legal version of six degrees from Kevin Bacon..”

Georgia Appellate Court Disqualifies Fani Willis (Turley)

Today, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her team in the prosecution of President-elect Donald Trump. The final collapse of the House of Willis came after months of her spending enormous amounts of time and money to try to stay at the lead of the high-profile case. Lawfare holds little value unless you are the lead warrior. For over a year, some have criticized Willis for her refusal to recuse herself. When her hiring of her former lover was first disclosed, Willis could have done the right thing for her office, the case, and the public. She could have recused herself and may have preserved her office’s ability to continue with the case. She was then given a further opportunity to do the right thing by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee who disqualified her former lover, Nathan Wade, and found an “appearance of impropriety.”

He, however, left it up to Willis to recuse herself after criticizing her conduct. Some of us noted that the finding did not jive with the order. If there was an “appearance of impropriety,” it would obviously continue with Willis remaining at the lead in the case. However, Willis let the case go dormant and committed her office to the fight to preserve her role. Now, the appellate court has forced her off the case and ordered a new office to take over any prosecution. The court ruled that “[a]fter carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office. The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.”

The court admitted that Willis had forced the hand of the court by her refusal to do the right thing in the lower court. It recognized that “an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Accordingly, it reversed McAfee and found that if “the elected district attorney is wholly disqualified from this case, ‘the assistant district attorneys — whose only power to prosecute a case is derived from the constitutional authority of the district attorney who appointed them — have no authority to proceed.’” The opinion made clear that these cases cannot become the vanity projects of prosecutors. They are expected to do the right thing, even when the right thing does not come easily personally or politically.

The center of the case now shifts to another prosecutor who will have to decide whether it wants to continue the case and what (and who) to prosecute. As I have previously written, the Georgia case has viable crimes against others for offenses such as unlawful entry into restricted areas. The case against Trump was deeply flawed. It read like a legal version of six degrees from Kevin Bacon. As my friend and fellow analyst Andy McCarthy noted, this is the first racketeering case that any of us have seen where the strongest connection between the parties was being named in the charging documents.

A new prosecutor should drop the Trump charges and end this ridiculous lawfare enterprise. If not, the case will likely collapse by its own weight due to the attenuated racketeering theory or other legal problems, including the use of evidence barred under the recent presidential immunity decision. In the end, Willis was reelected by the voters of Atlanta who clearly accepted or supported the weaponization of the criminal justice system to target political opponents. The millions spent in the case were just treated as a cost of doing the business of lawfare. Hopefully, a new prosecution office will restore a modicum of integrity to the Georgia legal system. It is now time to end this circus as the ringmaster leaves the center ring.

Read more …

What did Bezos pay? Not much of that is left. The $1 million for Trump comes way too late. Nobody reads WaPo anymore.

Top Editors Stiff WashPost (Axios)

The situation at The Washington Post is so dire that two candidates to run the paper — Cliff Levy of The New York Times and Meta’s Anne Kornblut, a former Post editor — both withdrew from consideration for the top newsroom job over the paper’s strategy, sources involved in the process tell us. The Post is scrambling to find a new executive editor, the chair once held by Ben Bradlee, amid shrinking paid readership and revenue. Publisher and CEO Will Lewis, handpicked by owner Jeff Bezos to save The Post, hasn’t impressed the candidates with his vision for the future, the sources tell us. One person involved in the search told us Lewis’ pitch was foggy and uninspiring. Levy, who pulled out last week, and Kornblut, whose conversations ended in September, declined to comment. Other candidates include current interim executive editor Matt Murray.

But it’s hard to imagine this monthslong process unfolding so publicly — only to end with the same guy in charge. A few candidates were asked to write six-page memos — a hallmark of Amazon culture — about their journalistic vision for the paper, using AI and how to grow The Post’s audience. Levy is a two-time Pulitzer winner who was an early advocate for digital innovation, and now is deputy publisher of two prized Times properties, The Athletic and Wirecutter. He started talking to The Post in August after the paper’s search firm, Egon Zehnder, reached out. Kornblut, who declined to move forward with the process after initial conversations, is Meta’s VP of global product content operations. She had a formidable newspaper career before moving to the Bay Area as a tech executive: She was a Washington correspondent for The Boston Globe and The New York Times before becoming a Washington Post reporter and editor for eight years.

Kornblut rose to deputy assistant managing editor for national news, where she was the lead editor on Pulitzer-winning coverage of Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations. Matea Gold — a respected, popular managing editor many reporters wanted in the top job, and who conceived of and ran The Post’s Pulitzer-winning investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol — announced last week that she’s moving to The New York Times as Washington editor, making her deputy to the bureau chief. There’s lots of anxiety in The Post newsroom right now about whether the paper is still committed to that kind of fearless accountability reporting. Axios confirmed that the search firm also reached out to Kevin Merida and Steven Ginsberg, two former Washington Post managing editors. Neither expressed interest in the role.

The big picture: Bezos has said little about what he wants for a revived Post. He is scheduled to dine with President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago this week — two months after killing a Post endorsement of Trump’s rival, Vice President Harris. Bezos’ various business interests — Amazon and the Blue Origin space company — stand to gain or suffer from Trump’s presidency. The Post has announced no major shifts or innovations under the Lewis regime. Toss in a demoralized staff and invigorated labor unions, and you have a mighty challenge for the next top editor.

Between the lines: The Post has lost a ton of talent this last year, and several stars are talking to competitors about leaving soon. One hot rumor inside The Post: The Atlantic is licking its chops over political writers who are increasingly poachable. Other Posties are eying The New York Times, long known at the Post as “Brand X.” People involved in the process say Bezos has been mostly MIA at the Post, leaving matters to Lewis, who is unpopular in the newsroom.
Several people familiar with The Post’s search were baffled by the apparent absence of editorial vision or business strategy. “I’m not sure it’s salvageable,” one of them said.

Read more …

“..forcing Trump to make critical choices between his transactional instincts and the harsh ideological bent of his advisers.”

Trump Confronts a Rising China (Michael Klare)

Gaza, Haiti, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, and Venezuela: President-elect Donald Trump will face no shortage of foreign-policy challenges when he assumes office in January. None, however, comes close to China in scope, scale, or complexity. No other country has the capacity to resist his predictable antagonism with the same degree of strength and tenacity, and none arouses more hostility and outrage among MAGA Republicans. In short, China is guaranteed to put President Trump in a difficult bind the second time around: he can either choose to cut deals with Beijing and risk being branded an appeaser by the China hawks in his party, or he can punish and further encircle Beijing, risking a potentially violent clash and possibly even nuclear escalation. How he chooses to resolve this quandary will surely prove the most important foreign test of his second term in office.

Make no mistake: China truly is considered The Big One by those in Trump’s entourage responsible for devising foreign policy. While they imagine many international challenges to their “America First” strategy, only China, they believe, poses a true threat to the continued global dominance of this country. “I feel strongly that the Chinese Communist Party has entered into a Cold War with the United States and is explicit in its aim to replace the liberal, Western-led world order that has been in place since World War II,” Representative Michael Waltz, Trump’s choice as national security adviser, declared at a 2023 event hosted by the Atlantic Council. “We’re in a global arms race with an adversary that, unlike any in American history, has the economic and the military capability to truly supplant and replace us.”

As Waltz and others around Trump see it, China poses a multi-dimensional threat to this country’s global supremacy. In the military domain, by building up its air force and navy, installing military bases on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, and challenging Taiwan through increasingly aggressive air and naval maneuvers, it is challenging continued American dominance of the Western Pacific. Diplomatically, it’s now bolstering or repairing ties with key U.S. allies, including India, Indonesia, Japan, and the members of NATO. Meanwhile, it’s already close to replicating this country’s most advanced technologies, especially its ability to produce advanced microchips. And despite Washington’s efforts to diminish a U.S. reliance on vital Chinese goods, including critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, it remains a primary supplier of just such products to this country.

For many in the Trumpian inner circle, the only correct, patriotic response to the China challenge is to fight back hard. Both Representative Waltz, Trump’s pick as national security adviser, and Senator Marco Rubio, his choice as secretary of state, have sponsored or supported legislation to curb what they view as “malign” Chinese endeavors in the United States and abroad. Waltz, for example, introduced the American Critical Mineral Exploration and Innovation Act of 2020, which was intended, as he explained, “to reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of critical minerals and bring the U.S. supply chain from China back to America.” Senator Rubio has been equally combative in the legislative arena. In 2021, he authored the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which banned goods produced in forced labor encampments in Xinjiang Province from entering the United States.

He also sponsored several pieces of legislation aimed at curbing Chinese access to U.S. technology. Although these, as well as similar measures introduced by Waltz, haven’t always obtained the necessary congressional approval, they have sometimes been successfully bundled into other legislation. In short, Trump will enter office in January with a toolkit of punitive measures for fighting China ready to roll along with strong support among his appointees for making them the law of the land. But of course, we’re talking about Donald Trump, so nothing is a given. Some analysts believe that his penchant for deal-making and his professed admiration for Chinese strongman President Xi Jinping may lead him to pursue a far more transactional approach, increasing economic and military pressure on Beijing to produce concessions on, for example, curbing the export of fentanyl precursors to Mexico, but when he gets what he wants letting them lapse.

Howard Lutnick, the billionaire investor from Cantor Fitzgerald whom he chose as Commerce secretary, claims that Trump actually “wants to make a deal with China,” and will use the imposition of tariffs selectively as a bargaining tool to do so. What such a deal might look like is anyone’s guess, but it’s hard to see how Trump could win significant concessions from Beijing without abandoning some of the punitive measures advocated by the China hawks in his entourage. Count on one thing: this complicated and confusing dynamic will play out in each of the major problem areas in U.S.-China relations, forcing Trump to make critical choices between his transactional instincts and the harsh ideological bent of his advisers.

Read more …

Puti did his annual “ask me anything” gathering. 4.5 hours. Off the cuff.

Putin Says He Hasn’t Spoken To Trump For More Than Four Years (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin stated during his annual end-of-year press conference on Thursday that he has not spoken to US President-elect Donald Trump in over four years, and thus expects “there will be plenty to discuss” when their next conversation takes place. The comment came in response to a question from Keir Simmons of NBC News, who asked about the potential dynamics of a future meeting between the two leaders, suggesting that Russia’s position on the global stage has weakened and that Trump would have the upper hand in any talks. “I don’t know when we will meet because he has not said anything about it,” Putin said. “I have not talked to him for more than four years. Of course, I’m ready to talk anytime; I will be ready to meet with him if he wishes.”

The Russian leader went on to refute the notion of a weak Russia, saying that the US journalist and those paying his salary “really want to see Russia in a weakened state,” but as a “well-known writer once remarked: ‘The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.’” “I believe that Russia has become significantly stronger in the past two or three years. Why? Because we are becoming a truly sovereign country, and we barely depend on anybody. We are capable of firmly standing on our own feet when it comes to the economy,” Putin said. The president highlighted Russia’s economic resilience and stated that the combat readiness of the Russian Armed Forces is among the highest in the world, with the defense industry rapidly expanding and producing essential military equipment.

“That is why I believe that Russia has largely achieved the state we wanted to achieve. It has grown stronger and become a truly sovereign state, and we will make decisions without regard to other people’s opinions, only with our national interests in mind,” he added. During a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate on Monday, Trump declined to say whether he had spoken to Putin since winning last month’s presidential election, but indicated that he intends to do so at some point.

“We’ll be talking to President Putin, and we’ll be talking to representatives Zelensky and others from Ukraine,” he said. “We’ve got to stop it. It’s carnage,” referring to the almost three-year conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he could end the Ukraine conflict within “24 hours” of taking office by forcing “peace through strength,” but has not provided specifics on how he would do this. Putin previously stated that Trump’s remarks on ending the conflict “deserve attention” and expressed openness to talks with the president-elect. “Should there be an opportunity for a meeting with the newly elected President Donald Trump, I am confident there will be plenty to discuss,” Putin said on Thursday.

Read more …

“Let them identify a target in Kiev, concentrate all their air defense and missile defense systems there, and then we will strike it with an Oreshnik..”

Putin Challenges West To ‘Technological Duel’ With Oreshnik (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has challenged the West to put their modern air defense systems up against Moscow’s new hypersonic Oreshnik missile in what would be a “technological duel.” During his annual end-of-year press conference on Thursday, Putin was asked to comment on opinions expressed by some foreign military experts suggesting that the Oreshnik can easily be shot down by Western missile defense systems. “Well, if those Western experts you mentioned believe that, they should suggest to their employers in the West and the US to conduct a technological experiment. For instance, a high-tech duel of the 21st century. Let them identify a target in Kiev, concentrate all their air defense and missile defense systems there, and then we will strike it with an Oreshnik. Let’s see what happens. We are ready for such an experiment. Is the other side ready?” Putin asked.

The president explained that given the technical characteristics of the Oreshnik and the current missile defense systems deployed by the West, it would be impossible to stop the missile or its hypersonic warheads after it had been launched. Putin suggested that the results of such a “duel” would be of great interest to both Russia and the US, whose air defense systems are currently operating in Ukraine. Putin was also asked why the Oreshnik is named the way it is, to which he confessed that he doesn’t actually know.

The Russian military carried out the first-ever combat test of the Oreshnik on November 21, using it to destroy a Ukrainian military industrial facility in Dnepr with multiple hypersonic warheads. Putin said at the time that the decision to unveil the Oreshnik was made in response to Ukraine’s long-range strikes on internationally recognized Russian territory made with Western permission. Putin had previously explained that the Oreshnik can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads, which travel at ten times the speed of sound, making it impossible for Western air-defense systems to intercept them.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1869695854459912571

Read more …

“The US not only does not have a hypersonic offensive system – it doesn’t even have a defensive system that has any hope of stopping Oreshnik..”

Russia’s Invincible Oreshnik Has Left West in The Dust – Ex-DoD Analyst (Sp.)

Russia’s Oreshnik medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile grabbed the attention of military observers the world over after it was fired at a major defense-related enterprise in Dnepropetrovsk days after the US and the UK okayed the launch of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles at targets deep inside Russia.The West is in denial about Russia’s Oreshnik missile that defense systems are powerless to counter, Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst in the Pentagon, told Sputnik.He pointed out that Russia’s multi-warhead, nuclear-capable Oreshnik has left the United States far behind.“The US not only does not have a hypersonic offensive system – it doesn’t even have a defensive system that has any hope of stopping Oreshnik and the new class of missiles that are coming out,” the veteran analyst maintained. While the US scrambles to be in the vanguard of such cutting-edge weapons systems, in effect it tends to “put all the bells and whistles on a system, overprice it and then fall behind,” said Maloof.

Washington is reluctant to acknowledge that both Russia and China have weapons systems that the US does not have, namely, hypersonic missiles. The pundit speculated that if the United States had remained in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a missile like the Oreshnik might not exist today. He observed that Russia’s clear demonstration of the missile’s unmatched capabilities serves as “another way of Putin telling Trump to maybe reconsider.”“I think in order to lessen the threshold of war […] and this would be a good start and, at least, beginning with the United States and Russia. And the other countries can follow suit,” said Maloof, adding: “It’s something that the world needs to really focus in on, recognize, and deal with constructively.”

Read more …

“..the “West pulled the plug on the negotiations which were on course to produce a ceasefire.”

‘Deeply Immoral’ Anglo-Americans Sabotaged Ukraine Peace – Ex-Swiss Envoy (RT)

Veteran Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch has alleged that the US and UK “immorally” prevented Ukraine and Russia from sealing a truce back in April 2022 in the hope of dealing a blow to Moscow. The former official, who at the time served as Swiss ambassador to Türkiye, was in the country when peace talks were taking place. In Istanbul, Ukraine and Russia preliminarily agreed to a draft truce under which Kiev would have renounced its NATO membership aspirations, declared neutrality, and limited the size of its armed forces in exchange for international security guarantees. However, Ukrainian negotiators abruptly pulled out, with Moscow later claiming that then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had urged the Ukrainian leadership not to sign any accord and to “just continue fighting.”

While David Arakhamia, the Zelensky-allied MP who led the Ukrainian delegation, confirmed this in November 2023, Johnson still insists that the allegation is an “absolute steaming, stinking lie.” In an interview with the French-speaking Anti These media outlet on Sunday, Ruch recounted how the “West pulled the plug on the negotiations which were on course to produce a ceasefire.” According to the diplomat, it was clear already in April 2022 that “if the war continued… the dead would be counted at least in tens of thousands, more probably in hundreds of thousands.” Nevertheless, the “Americans and their British allies” intervened in the Istanbul peace talks and scuttled a ceasefire that “was within reach,” insisting on weakening Russia further instead, Ruch claimed.

The former ambassador described the move as “deeply immoral,” suggesting that Kiev is now unlikely to be offered terms as favorable as the ones proposed in 2022 in Türkiye. Speaking on Johnson’s role in those events, the veteran diplomat alleged that the former British leader “was in [Istanbul] on duty for the Americans” as he “doesn’t make this kind of decisions all by himself.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed readiness to engage in dialogue with Kiev based on the draft agreement prepared in Istanbul in the spring of 2022, plus recognition of the “new territorial realities” that have taken shape since. According to the Russian leader, “the document did not come into force only because the Ukrainians were ordered not to do this. The elites in the US and some European countries felt the desire to seek Russia’s strategic defeat.”

Read more …

The Ukrainians were merely the henchmen. They had to get the OK first.

It’s The Biolabs, Stupid: Is This Why Ukraine Murdered A Russian General?

The shocking assassination of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the head of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Protection Forces, reverberates far beyond the streets of Moscow. On December 17, 2024, Kirillov was killed in a brazen bombing, an act the Russian government has denounced as terrorism. While the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) – Kiev’s successor to the Soviet KGB – via ‘anonymous sources’ cited in multiple media outlets, has claimed responsibility, labeling Kirillov a war criminal, the truth about his death is likely far more complex – and far more chilling. Kirillov’s death was not just an attack on a prominent Russian official; it was an attack on the truth. For years, he had been at the forefront of investigating and exposing alleged US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, claiming they were part of a broader Western biological warfare agenda.

His assassination raises a deeply unsettling question: Was this a deliberate effort to silence him and prevent his revelations from coming to light? Kirillov’s work was controversial, but his allegations deserved scrutiny. He repeatedly accused the United States of funding clandestine biological laboratories in Ukraine, purportedly operating under the guise of public health initiatives. According to Russian reports, these labs were involved in the development of pathogens that could potentially target specific populations, a claim Washington and Kiev vehemently denied. Throughout the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Kirillov presented what he claimed were classified documents and intercepted communications proving the existence of such facilities.

He argued that the labs represented a serious threat not only to Russia but to global security. Though his assertions were often dismissed in the West as propaganda, they stirred debate and distrust among nations already skeptical of US military and scientific activities abroad. The timing and method of Kirillov’s assassination are too conspicuous to ignore. A bomb concealed on an electric scooter detonated as he left for work, killing him and his assistant. The sophistication of the attack suggests involvement by professionals with substantial resources. The SBU’s admission of responsibility and Russia’s subsequent arrest of an alleged Ukrainian agent may seem to provide a tidy explanation. However, there are reasons to believe that more powerful actors had a vested interest in Kirillov’s demise.

Kirillov’s investigations threatened to unveil a shadowy intersection of science, warfare, and geopolitics. If even a fraction of his claims about the US biolabs in Ukraine were accurate, they would implicate powerful institutions in serious breaches of international law, including violations of the Biological Weapons Convention. Such revelations would have provoked outrage among non-aligned nations and could have seriously undermined the credibility of the United States and its allies.

Read more …

National identities are a threat to Brussels.

EU Suffers By Suppressing National Identities – Putin (RT)

People in the European Union are being negatively affected by the marginalization of their national identities, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, arguing that a lack of national sovereignty affects all aspects of life in a state. Speaking during his year-end marathon Q&A session, Putin cited economic stagnation in Germany, claiming Russia’s economy is stable in comparison. One of the event’s co-hosts brought up a story that Putin told recently about a visit to Germany and how all songs performed at an event he was attending were in English. Putin said it was not completely true, since he brought a Russian band with him to be part of the entertainment at the birthday of former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The visiting singers learned a native song on their way to Hanover as a gesture of respect to the host, he said.

”Sovereignty is a very important thing. It has to be on the inside, in the heart. I believe that the German people had this feeling of belonging to a homeland and sovereignty eradicated in them during the post-war period,” he mused. ”Who are the Europeans? They are all proud to be European. But they are first of all French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, and Europeans secondly,” he added. Attempts to tone down national differences in the bloc are affecting everything, including the economy, Putin argued. Russia puts a premium on its sovereignty and enjoys the benefit of deciding its own policies, he concluded.

Read more …

Hot air.

Russia Expresses Concern Over Gaza ‘Recolonization’ (RT)

Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has raised the alarm over Israeli officials floating the idea of replacing Palestinians with Jewish settlers in Gaza. The diplomat also accused the US of shielding Israel through its vetoes in the UN Security Council. Israel has been occupying the West Bank since 1967 in defiance of the international body’s decisions. Israel launched a massive military operation in Gaza following a deadly attack by Hamas militants on the country on October 7, 2023, which left 1,200 people dead and over 250 abducted. The heavy aerial bombardment and ground offensive by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has killed 45,000 Palestinians in the densely populated enclave, according to local Hamas-controlled health officials.

Speaking at a UN Security Council session on Wednesday, Nebenzia stated that the “Israelis continue to further their plans on building new [illegal] settlements in the West Bank,” as well as razing Palestinian homes on made-up pretexts. This, according to the Russian envoy, is precluding any chance of a negotiated settlement to the decades-long conflict. He also noted multiple instances of harassment and violence by Jewish settlers toward Palestinians, with the Israeli authorities allegedly turning a blind eye. “Against this backdrop, Israeli officials’ remarks on forcibly changing the demographics of Gaza with a view to ‘recolonizing’ the enclave are causing particular concern,” Nebenzia said. He went on to claim that Israel is abusing its legitimate right to self-defense by conducting indiscriminate military actions in Gaza, the West Bank, as well as Lebanon and Syria.

“To our huge regret, all efforts by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire and free the hostages have so far been blocked by the US,” Nebenzia said, citing Washington’s repeated vetoes of resolutions. As recently as this October, several Israeli ministers and settler activists held a rally near the Gaza border, with attendees calling for the removal of Palestinians from the enclave and repopulating it with Jews. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right Jewish Power party, said during the event: “What we have learned this year is that everything is up to us. We are the owners of this land.” May Golan, the minister for social equality and women’s rights, echoed this sentiment, pledging that “anyone who uses their plot of land to plan another Holocaust will receive from us… another Nakba” – a term used to describe the mass exodus of more than 750,000 Arabs from Palestine in 1948.

Read more …

“Per a 2018 U.N. investigation, “universal, free healthcare” was extended to all Syrian citizens, who “enjoyed some of the highest levels of care in the region.” Education was likewise free..”

US Plans to Sell Off Syria’s Wealth After Assad (Klarenberg)

In the immediate wake of the Syrian government’s abrupt collapse, much remains uncertain about the country’s future – including whether it can survive as a unitary state or will splinter into smaller states as did Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, a move that ultimately led to a bloody NATO intervention. Moreover, who or what may take power in Damascus remains an open question. For the time being at least, members of ultra-extremist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) appear highly likely to take key positions in whatever administrative structure sprouts from Bashar Assad’s ouster after a decade-and-a-half of grinding Western-sponsored regime change efforts. As Reuters reported on December 12, HTS is already “stamping its authority on Syria’s state with the same lightning speed that it seized the country, deploying police, installing an interim government and meeting foreign envoys.”

Meanwhile, its bureaucrats – “who until last week were running an Islamist administration in a remote corner of Syria’s northwest” – have moved en masse “into government headquarters in Damascus.” Mohammed Bashir, head of HTS’ “regional government” in extremist-occupied Idlib, has been appointed the country’s “caretaker prime minister.” However, despite the chaos and precariousness of post-Assad Syria, one thing seems assured – the country will be broken open to Western economic exploitation, at long last. Multiple reports show that HTS has informed local and international business leaders that when in office, it will “adopt a free-market model and integrate the country into the global economy, in a major shift from decades of corrupt state control.”

As Alexander McKay of the Marx Engels Lenin Institute tells MintPress News, state-controlled parts of Syria’s economy may have been under Assad, but corrupt it wasn’t. He believes a striking feature of the ongoing attacks on Syrian infrastructure from forces within and without the country is that economic and industrial sites are a recurrent target. Moreover, the would-be HTS-dominated government has done nothing to counter these broadsides when “securing key economic assets will be vital to societal reconstruction, and therefore a matter of priority”: We can see clearly what kind of country these ‘moderate rebels’ plan to build. Forces like HTS are allied with U.S. imperialism, and their economic approach will reflect this.

Prior to the proxy war, the government pursued an economic approach that mixed public ownership and market elements. State intervention enabled a degree of political independence [that] other nations in the region lack. Assad’s administration understood without an industrial base, being sovereign is impossible. The new ‘free market’ approach will see all of that utterly decimated.” Syria’s economic independence and strength under Assad’s rule and the benefits reaped by average citizens, as a result, were never acknowledged in the mainstream before or during the decade-long proxy war. Yet, countless reports from major international institutions underline this reality – which has now been brutally vanquished, never to return. For example, an April 2015 World Health Organization document noted how Damascus “had one of the best-developed healthcare systems in the Arab world.”

Per a 2018 U.N. investigation, “universal, free healthcare” was extended to all Syrian citizens, who “enjoyed some of the highest levels of care in the region.” Education was likewise free, and before the conflict, “an estimated 97% of primary school-aged Syrian children were attending class, and Syria’s literacy rates were thought to be at over 90% for both men and women [emphasis added].” By 2016, millions were out of school. A U.N. Human Rights Council report two years later noted pre-war Syria “was the only country in the Middle East region to be self-sufficient in food production,” its “thriving agricultural sector” contributing “about 21%” to GDP 2006 – 2011. Civilians’ daily caloric intake “was on par with many Western countries,” with prices kept affordable via state subsidy. Meanwhile, the country’s economy was “one of the best performing in the region, with a growth rate averaging 4.6%” annually.

Read more …

“All essential goods and services have been successfully replaced by Russian manufacture, or from what are now known as ‘friendly’ nations..”

Russia Owes Growing Economic Strength to West’s ‘Sanctions on Steroids’ (Sp.)

President Putin commented on the state of the Russian economy at his traditional year-end press conference Thursday, projecting GDP growth of 2-2.5% in 2025, and attributing the economy’s growing strength to “sovereignty.” Sputnik asked a leading financial observer to list off the measures Russia has taken to survive the West’s sanctions onslaught. “To a large extent,” Russia’s economic stability “is the result of the strengthening of sovereignty, including projected onto the economy,” Putin said at Thursday’s annual Q&A session. “Sovereignty comes in different forms, including defense, technological, scientific, educational, cultural. This is especially important for our country, because when we lose our sovereignty, we lose statehood. That’s the most important thing,” Putin added.

Russia’s path toward economic sovereignty goes back over a decade, owing its success largely to the unprecedented sanctions war the West launched against Moscow in 2014, at the start of the Ukrainian crisis, veteran financial analyst Paul Goncharoff says. “Back in 2014 the ‘sanctions on steroids’ era began against Russia. With each following year the dose only increased,” with Russia eventually becoming “the most sanctioned country in history,” Goncharoff, general director of consulting firm Goncharoff LLC, recalled in an interview with Sputnik. Russia was able to overcome the sanctions pressure through baby steps, starting with timely investments in agricultural self-sufficiency to reduce dependence on imports, as well as “stimulating essential import replacements for machinery and technological items,” the observer explained.

Gradually, Moscow “realized that there were economically beneficial alliances to be made with countries that were to one or another degree impacted by restrictions from the West,” Goncharoff added, highlighting the priority eventually given to developing good economic relations with BRICS countries, the bloc’s expansion “and the use of sovereign currencies outside of the US dollar and Euro,” illuminating “the need and desire by many sovereign governments to get out of the ‘influence sphere’ of the G7, and their payments systems.” Russia’s strategy, particularly after its exclusion from the SWIFT banking system in 2022, proved correct, according to the analyst.

“Government fiscal income revenues from Russian imports have dropped in the West and increased in the East by tens of billions of dollars. Russia’s exports increased by US$31 billion after the West imposed the nastiest post 2022 trade sanctions. This has been a boon to the neighboring countries of Central Asia, Southeast Asia, India, MENA, Africa, and the Mercosur countries who now derive benefit from the Western-forced disengagement of Russia,” Goncharoff emphasized. Ultimately, Russia was able to find new partners outside the Western bloc by hitching its economic wagon to developing nations enjoying strong economic growth.

“All essential goods and services have been successfully replaced by Russian manufacture, or from what are now known as ‘friendly’ nations. The US Dollar is no longer used in settling international trade commitments, and with an understandably volatile transition, is gradually becoming systematized,” the observer said. “To sum it up: Import substitution, trade in local sovereign currencies, infrastructure changes toward the Global South and East, redirecting oil and gas to the Global South and East, and participating in the enhancement and expansion of BRICS as the new economic frontier all come together to have formed a successful series of strategic decisions which are ongoing and gathering strength,” Goncharoff concluded.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Eva

 

 

Hecc

 

 

Beach


 

Jingle


 

Adopted


 

Dinosaur

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Dec 142014
 
 December 14, 2014  Posted by at 12:15 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  2 Responses »


Jack Delano Freight train on the Chicago & North Western, Chicago to Clinton, Iowa Jan 1943

Americans Are 40% Poorer Than Before The Recession (MarketWatch)
UK Low-Paid And Zero-Hours Jobs Surge Dramatically (Observer)
Global Credit Markets Have Proclaimed An End To The Recovery (Alhambra)
Oil ‘Contango’ Fandango Over How Low Prices Will Finally Go (Telegraph)
Oil Price Crash Means $87 Billion Of New European Projects Face Axe (Telegraph)
Canadian Dollar At 54-Month Low As Oil Prices Collapse Below $60 (RT)
Noah’s 12 Survival Tips (Paul B. Farrell)
Paying Down The Debt Is Now Almost Mathematically Impossible (Simon Black)
Elizabeth Warren, Obama’s Left-Side Headache (Bloomberg)
US Senate Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill Averting Shutdown (Bloomberg)
Lima Marathon Climate Change Talks Reach Agreement (Guardian)
Germany To Remain Oil, Gas and Coal Powered For Next 70 Years (RT)
Assets Collapse, Loans Go Bad: UK Banks Brace For Serious Stress Test (Observer)
The New European ‘Arc Of Instability’ (Escobar)
Bundesbank Chief Attacks EU For Dragging Feet Over French Deficit (Telegraph)
A Viewer’s Guide to Dick Cheney (Bloomberg)
US Congress Readies New Sanctions On Russia (Reuters)
Russian Anger Over New US Sanctions And Lethal Military Aid For Ukraine (AFP)
‘If US Sends Weapons To Ukraine, Russia Should Send Troops’ (RT)
A New Cold War with Russia? (Ron Paul)
Do McCain and Obama Really Oppose Torture? (Ron Paul)
CIA Torture Is Reason For France To Exit NATO – Le Pen (RT)

That’s one ugly graph. Look at the difference between whites and the rest.

Americans Are 40% Poorer Than Before The Recession (MarketWatch)

The Great Recession is officially over, but Americans are still 40% poorer today than they were in 2007, the year before the global financial crisis. The net worth of American families – the difference between the values of their assets, including homes and investments, and liabilities – fell to $81,400 in 2013, down slightly from $82,300 in 2010, but a long way off the $135,700 in 2007, according to a new report released on Friday by the nonprofit think-tank Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C. “The Great Recession, fueled by the crises in the housing and financial markets, was universally hard on the net worth of American families,” the report found.

There is also a dramatic disparity in net worth between races. The median net worth of white households was $141,900 in 2013, down 26% since 2007. It declined by 42% to $13,700 over the same period for Hispanic households and fell by 43% to $11,000 for African-American households. One theory for the wealth gap: White households are more likely than other ethnicities to own stocks directly or indirectly through retirement accounts, the Pew report said. The wealth of most Americans has stood still. In November 2014, the average weekly wage was $853 versus $833 for November 2013, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But things are improving somewhat when it comes to housing.

Nationwide, only 8% of borrowers have homes that are underwater as of October 2014, down from a peak of 35%, or 18 million homes, in February 2011, according to Black Knight Financial Services in Jacksonville, Fla., which tracks mortgage performance. But 8% still impacts 4 million homes. Stagnant wages and rising property prices don’t bode well for first-time buyers without wealthy parents. The homeownership rate for non-Hispanic white households fell to 73.9% in 2013 from 75.3% in 2010, Pew found, and fell to 47.4% in 2013 from 50.6% in 2010 for minorities. It takes an average of 12.5 years to save up a 20% down payment – the usual requirement by banks – with a personal savings rate of 5.6%, according to real-estate firm RealtyTrac.

Read more …

This is how Cameron has built his recovery model.

UK Low-Paid And Zero-Hours Jobs Surge Dramatically (Observer)

New figures have revealed the dramatic spread of low-paid, insecure and casual work across the British economy since the financial crash of 2008. In that year, one in 20 men and one in 16 women worked in the casualised labour market. Now, one in 12 of both men and women are in precarious employment, which includes zero-hours contracts (ZHCs), agency work, variable hours and fixed-term contracts, according to new TUC data. According to the analysis, in 2008 there were 655,000 men in the casualised labour market. That number has risen by 61.8% to 1.06 million. The casualised female workforce has increased by 35.6%, from 795,000 in 2008 to 1.08 million in 2014. The TUC is also publishing research showing that since 2008, only one in 40 new jobs has been full-time. Over the same period, 60% of net jobs added have been self-employed and 36% have been part-time.

Employers argue that casual work often leads to a permanent post. According to the Work Foundation, however, only 44% of zero-hours contract jobs last for two years or more and 25% have lasted for five years or more. A survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development estimated that there are more than a million zero-hours contract workers – 3.1% of the UK workforce – four times the estimate of the Office for National Statistics in 2012. The business secretary, Vince Cable, has proposed that those on zero-hours contracts should have the right to request a fixed-term contract. Labour has proposed that an employee on a ZHC has the right to request permanent work after 12 months.

In its report, Women and Casualisation: Women’s Experiences of Job Insecurity, the TUC makes a number of recommendations to tackle precarious employment, including written contracts for those on zero- or short-hours contracts guaranteeing work patterns; payment for the time that a casual worker is on call; better enforcement of the minimum wage; better enforcement of statutory rights, such as the right to permanent work after four years; and more help from larger employers on childcare. “For many women, ‘flexibility’ has become synonymous with being at the beck and call of employers,” said the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady. “Job insecurity isn’t just something that affects women in industries like retail and social care; it is a problem across the labour market.”

Read more …

Heed this.

Global Credit Markets Have Proclaimed An End To The Recovery (Alhambra)

The amount of credit market fireworks this week is only surpassed by those of October 15. Everywhere you look, credit markets are not just growing bearish but, as I said earlier in the week, bearish in comparison with past crisis periods. The past few days have surpassed even that observation, making credit now a fast-moving indicator of still nothing good. For most people that makes sense of Europe. The currency bloc that has been strangled by the common euro is living up to that sense of monetary reality. All that talk of recovery only eight months ago has been washed away in a tide of remarkable fear. What was perhaps only unease or mild nervousness as late as September has turned in the past few weeks to what can only be described as growing desperation. Just this week, the German bund curve at the longer end has dropped 10-15 bps all the way out. The 15-year bund is now under 1%!

The benchmark 10-year has fallen all the way to an essentially meaningless 63 bps. That is an astounding drop of 44 bps going back to mid-September. You may recall mid-September for its break in this bearish action that started back in August. At the time I believed that minor reprieve was related to optimism over the ECB’s ABS plan and covered bond purchases that finally offered something specific apart from the usual bland platitudes of “promises.” Of course, since almost nobody even remembers that now, its total lack of efficacy has been made plain with the ECB looking far worse and even more (if that was possible) impotent for their trouble. So in the midst of what was forewarned as a major monetary “stimulus” credit market revulsion is severe; an exceptional result unlike anything of the past five years, especially the last three.

Read more …

“.. it is not inconceivable that the price of a barrel of Brent could touch lows of around $30 ..” And that’s the Telegraph …

Oil ‘Contango’ Fandango Over How Low Prices Will Finally Go (Telegraph)

Contango, or not contango? This is perhaps the most important question facing oil markets right now. In the space of a week, the global three top energy organisations have downgraded their forecasts for the amount of oil they think the world will need next year to fuel the economy. These revisions are significant in the context of understanding why the price of oil has fallen so dramatically in such a short period of time — down 45% since June — and helping to predict accurately where it is likely to be heading in the future. One of the secrets to understanding what price oil will be trading at in six months’ time could be predicting contango. This word, rarely spoken outside oil trading circles, refers to the point at which spot delivery prices for crude are cheaper than the futures contracts being bought for offloading months in advance. When contango develops, the motive to buy oil usually returns soon after, if only for the reason of brokers profiting from the price spread attached to storing excess supply in tanks.

With Brent threatening to break its current $60 per barrel resistance level, oil traders are beginning to see the sort of deep contango that could put a floor under prices taking shape in the market. Even some members of the OPEC are now fixing their spot crude contract prices on the assumption that contango is already under way. Iraq’s state oil marketing company used that excuse this week as the reason why it cut its prices. “The widened contango in crude oil prices in Asia was the major reason behind the cut,” said the company. Of course, even more crude sloshing around in brim-full storage tanks is a sign that the fundamental link between supply and demand, which drives all markets, is currently broken when it comes to oil. World oil markets are now facing a demand shock of epic proportions, which makes predicting a floor to the price of crude increasingly difficult, unless producers unilaterally agree to deep cuts in output.

Given the glut of oil already in circulation on tankers without customers to unload to, it is not inconceivable that the price of a barrel of Brent could touch lows of around $30, last seen during the depths of the financial crisis in 2008. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), growth in world demand for oil will next year again fall below the critical figure of 1m barrels per day (bpd), reaching 93.3m bpd in total. The agency has also warned of a 300m barrel increase that has built up in the storage tanks across Europe and North America. American estimates for demand are even more depressed, with the Energy Information Administration (EIA) — part of the US Department of Energy — this week reducing its forecast demand growth to just 880,000 bpd, or 92.8m bpd in total. Finally, OPEC itself shaved off 70,000 bpd to 92.26m bpd, of which it will account for a smaller share.

Read more …

Make it 10 times that.

Oil Price Crash Means $87 Billion Of New European Projects Face Axe (Telegraph)

Dozens of new oil projects in the North Sea and Europe could be shelved as falling prices force international oil companies to tear up their investment plans. Global energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie has said that 32 potential European oil field developments containing 4.9bn barrels of oil equivalent are waiting for approval on more than $87bn (£55bn) of funding. These could be at risk should oil prices fall below $60 per barrel. Major projects and investment in the UK and across Continental and Mediterranean Europe could be at risk if prices stay below $80 per barrel, as over 70% of the pre-FID [final investment decision] reserves in each region have a break-even [price] in excess of $60 per barrel, James Webb, lead analyst at Wood Mackenzie, told The Sunday Telegraph. Whereas in Norway almost 80% of reserves require an oil price of less than $60 per barrel to break even, he said. Norway’s output is expected to increase by 50,000 barrels per day to average almost 1.9m bpd in 2014, despite the recent slump in prices.

Major international oil companies such as BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips are already reviewing capital expenditure levels in the wake of a rout in global crude markets, which has wiped 45% off the price of a barrel of Brent since June. The benchmark closed out the week at just above $62 per barrel, close to a new five-and-a-half-year low, after the International Energy Agency slashed its forecast for demand growth next year by 230,000 barrels to 93.3m bpd. A sharp cutback in spending on new projects by oil majors could also threaten thousands of jobs in the UK s oil and gas sector offshore and hit hubs such as Aberdeen and Montrose, which serve the North Sea, hard. BP warned of thousands of potential redundancies last week, as it informed investors of $1bn of cuts it plans to make to adjust its business to the new lower price environment. The downward trend in oil prices is a growing source of concern for operators across Europe, said Mr Webb.

Read more …

Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria and Canada. Nice lise.

Canadian Dollar At 54-Month Low As Oil Prices Collapse Below $60 (RT)

The Canadian dollar is taking spill with falling oil prices, and traded at a new low of 86.58 cents against the US dollar Friday. Canada has the world’s third largest proven oil reserves, and relies on oil and gas exports for 30% of GDP. The ‘Loonie’, as the currency is called in Canada, hit a 5-year low in October, and continues to sink along with oil prices, which have lost more than 43% from their June peak. Brent crude, the global benchmark, was trading at $62.95 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures slipped to $59. The Canadian currency hit a high of $1.05 against the dollar in summer 2011, but has been stuck in a 5-year lull as investors sell off crude oil in the market. “Roughly speaking, if we start to think about oil prices below $50 a barrel for any significant period of time, you’re talking in all likelihood of a US dollar getting up to the CAN$1.20 to CAN$1.25 range,” Shaun Osborne, chief currency strategist at TD Securities is quoted by Reuters as saying.

As oil prices collapse, so are the currencies in high-cost oil producing nations, such as Canada, Norway, and Russia. Both Norway and Russia have complex oil drilling projects in frigid northern waters, which often necessitate ice breakers. Canadian heavy crude has fallen to near $40 a barrel. The blend trades lower than WTI because production and shipping costs in Canada are more expensive. Canada specializes in oil sands, which needs to be extracted from the ground and refined and processed into lighter crude. About one-third of Canada’s proven reserves are oil sands. Like the US shale boom, Canada’s oil sands have been a big boost to the economy since the 2008-2009 recession. Canada is the largest source of energy imports into the United States, the world’s second biggest oil consumer. Canadian energy stocks have taken a beating as crude has plunged into a bear market, as many investors are losing confidence in the expensive oil extraction methods.

Read more …

Vintage Farrell.

Noah’s 12 Survival Tips (Paul B. Farrell)

Merry Christmas? No, just same ol’ happy-talkin’ Scrooges pushing the same ol’ tired message — spend, spend, spend, run up our holiday retail numbers. But I’ll bet your gut’s filled with dark storm warnings … crashing oil stocks threaten recovery, growth … China, EU, developing markets stalling … trading, commodities, exports falling … corporate profits mask low-skill jobs … wages flattening … interest rates, inflation too low … as the middle class keeps losing, superrich capitalists lobby for bigger perks … maybe economist Robert Gordon’s dismal forecast is right, America may already be collapsing into a 1% GDP by 2100.

Happy New Years? No, don’t count on it … all this is coming on top of America’s hard-right changing-of-the-guard … the victorious GOP is taking command of the ship … and they’re unconsciously threatening economic growth with their partisan dogma designed to undermine everything done by the president the past six years — health care, immigration, minority voting and women’s rights — while now aggressively undermining all climate initiatives with uncompromising science-denial plans guaranteed to further frustrate Main Street voters and sabotage America’s weak economic recovery.

But for the moment, Christmas spirit shines above all those storm warnings, above the accelerating climate disasters, a great spirit reminiscent of my days years ago overseas with the Marine Corps, often serving mass for Catholic chaplains. A great gift, a mystery, a privilege. A welcome respite from what’s ahead. Why? We just put up four Christmas trees lighting our home today, memories going back to celebrations in my home in small-town Pennsylvania, where that lit up my youth during holidays. Christmas is that kind of story time, filled with happy memories, like how we got our home, through Capt. Jerry Shields, chaplain of the First Marine Expeditionary Force. I fell in love with his Christmas list: “All I Really Need to Know I Learned From Noah’s Ark.” It was on the wall of our future home we first walked in years ago, lit up my eyes with a smile.

Chaplain Shields was the owner’s son. I looked, was hooked. The message, this home was waiting for you. Today the same spirit arises year after year, of serving mass for Marine chaplains. And also collecting Noah’s Ark memorabilia. After a double-take, they gave us a copy. We were sold on the house, put in an offer on the spot. Love it more with each passing Christmas, living here in God’s country. Noah’s spirit surrounds us every day, reminds of how to navigate successfully through good times and bad, always true to yourself. If you need to know how to survive the storm, Noah’s got the answer. Yes, the great ark-builder is one of history’s all-time survivors. He listened to the right voice, the one echoing within his soul, all souls. Trust it.

Read more …

“.. even with absurd assumptions (7%+ GDP growth for years at a time, low interest rates, etc.), it is simply not feasible for the US government to ‘grow’ its way out”.

Paying Down The Debt Is Now Almost Mathematically Impossible (Simon Black)

Exactly 199 years ago, in 1815, a “temporary” committee was established in the US Senate called the Committee on Finance and Uniform National Currency. It was set up to address economic issues and the debt accrued by the US government after the War of 1812. Of course, because there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government measure, the committee became a permanent one after just one year. It soon expanded its role from raising tariffs to having influence over taxation, banking, currency, and appropriations. In subsequent wars, notably the American Civil War, the Committee was quick to use its powers and introduced the union’s first income tax. They also detached the dollar from gold to help fund the war.

This was all an indication of things to come. Over the subsequent decades there was a sustained push to finally establish the country’s central bank that will control money and credit, as well as institute a permanent income tax to feed the expanding aspirations of government. They succeeded in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed and the 16th Amendment ratified, binding the country in the shackles of central banking and taxation of income. Over the century that followed, the US has gone from being the biggest creditor in the world to its biggest debtor. Decades of expanding government programs, waste, endless and costly wars, etc. have racked up such an enormous pile of debt that it has become almost impossible to pay it down. A lot of folks don’t realize that, since the end of World War II, the US government’s total tax revenue has been almost constant at roughly 17% of GDP.

In other words, even though the actual tax rates themselves rise and fall, the government’s ‘slice’ of the economic pie is almost always the same – 17%. I’ve worked out a mathematical model which shows that, even with absurd assumptions (7%+ GDP growth for years at a time, low interest rates, etc.), it is simply not feasible for the US government to ‘grow’ its way out. Default has become the only option. And that could mean a number of things. They could default on their creditors (other governments like China who loaned money to the US government). But this would spark a global financial and banking crisis. They could default on the Federal Reserve, which owns trillions of dollars of US debt. But this would create an epic currency crisis for the US dollar. They could also default on their obligations to their citizens—primarily to future beneficiaries of Social Security (who collectively own trillions of dollars of US debt).

Read more …

But she didn’t win.

Elizabeth Warren, Obama’s Left-Side Headache (Bloomberg)

If the #cromnibus debate is a sign of what’s to come, President Obama may wish he had given Elizabeth Warren the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau post she wanted. From trade to taxes, President Barack Obama is looking for areas to cut deals with the new congressional Republican majority and burnish his legacy. Judging by the budget debate this week, at least one obstacle to bipartisanship will be the progressives in his own party, who will have a more influential voice in a slimmed-down caucus when Congress returns in January. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi gave the White House palpitations Thursday when she railed against the $1.1 trillion government spending bill that the president supported, delaying the vote for hours and increasing the risk of a second government shutdown in as many years. Obama needed to make personal calls to House Democrats to shore up support, and sent his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, to the Capitol to do the same.

The announcement on Friday that Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio will serve as the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, released in the midst of the spending fight that had been held up by a debate over derivatives, foreshadowed more resistance. The pro-labor senator’s news release came complete with statements of support from leaders of credit unions and homeless and housing advocates, rather than Wall Street titans. Blowback was coming from the outside, too. Americans for Financial Reform–a liberal advocacy group–was the first to alert Pelosi’s office to a provision in the spending measure that loosened a banking regulation imposed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. That sparked an anti-Wall Street narrative and led to other liberal groups, like Progressive Change Campaign Committee, asking their members to contact lawmakers and register their opposition. The group also sought to raise money off the dispute.

Read more …

Just another ugly moment in American politics.

US Senate Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill Averting Shutdown (Bloomberg)

The Senate passed a $1.1 trillion bill to fund most of the U.S. government through September and avert a shutdown after defeating an effort by Ted Cruz that previewed a potential 2015 Republican fight over immigration. The 56-40 vote during an uncommon Saturday session follows House passage of the spending bill on Dec. 11 and sends the measure to President Barack Obama for his signature. Cruz of Texas, like a number of House Republicans, had sought to use the measure, H.R. 83, to block funding of Obama’s actions allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. The bill also drew “no” votes from Democrats who opposed language easing bank rules and allowing larger financial contributions to political parties.The measure was “poisoned by special favors flagrantly contrary to the public interest,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who voted against the bill, said in a statement.

The vote ended a weeks-long drama over immigration, government spending and banking rules as Senate Democrats prepare to turn the majority over to Republicans in January. Republicans also will have an expanded House majority, and this month’s fight previewed the party’s plans to try to roll back government regulations in 2015. While Republican leaders insisted they wouldn’t allow a government shutdown like the one in October 2013 that stemmed from an effort to defund Obamacare, Congress was just a few hours from a lapse in government funding Dec. 11 when lawmakers passed a stopgap measure to give the Senate time to act.

Read more …

Empty and hollow.

Lima Marathon Climate Change Talks Reach Agreement (Guardian)

Negotiators adopted a course of action on Sunday that would for the first time commit every country to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change. The decision reached at United Nations climate talks on Sunday was seen as a significant first step towards reaching a global climate change deal in Paris at the end of next year – although negotiators acknowledged much of the hard work remained ahead. It is also far from clear that the actions sketched out on Sunday would be enough to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels – or to protect poor countries from climate change. “I think this is good, and I think this moves us forward,” Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru’s environment minister and the chair of the talks, said.

The deal struck early Sunday – now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action – would for the first time require all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries, to take action on climate change. That represents a break from one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks – that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Now for the first time, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US since climate talks began as well as India, Brazil and other rising economies have agreed they will need to cut their own emissions as well. As agreed, countries would come up with their own emissions reductions targets, with a suggested deadline of 31 March 2015. The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the internationally agreed goal.

Read more …

We can’t help but reset that carbon imbalance, out of the ground and into the air.

Germany To Remain Oil, Gas and Coal Powered For Next 70 Years (RT)

Germany’s plan to phase out nuclear energy and switch to renewables by 2022 is unrealistic as the country is doomed to remain dependent on fossil fuels like oil and gas for the next 70 years, energy expert Matthias Dornfeldt told RT. Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels overnight because there’s not enough infrastructure, said Dornfeldt in an interview with RT. He believes the 21st century will be the century of gas, as the 20th century was the century of oil. “We are going to be dependent on oil as well as on gas, as I see, for the next 50, 60, 70 years”, he said, adding there is “a huge impact of fossil fuels on the national economy in Germany.” His comments echo a Wednesday study by the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) that said Germany would remain dependent on fossil fuels for decades.

Oil, natural gas, coal and lignite account for 80% of German energy consumption. Germany’s game plan to switch to renewables known as Energiewende, and the recently approved National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency looking very unrealistic, the report added. Following the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, Angela Merkel’s government made a commitment to phase out nuclear power by 2022 and get 80% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050. The country will need new energy infrastructure, including new power plants, transmission lines and additional energy storage.

Although some scientists look at the government’s attempts to cut emissions with skepticism, it hopes to reverse this with the Action Plan on Climate Protection it passed earlier in December. The plan suggests a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. Germany is still on a long way from achieving its target. Even oil production in Germany, which is small compared with the big international producers, contributes more to power generation than all of domestic photovoltaic equipment put together, the BGR study says. In 2014 the share of renewables in Germany’s energy mix grew 5% from the year before.

Read more …

What’ll be left after a real test?

Assets Collapse, Loans Go Bad: UK Banks Brace For Serious Stress Test (Observer)

House prices fall by an unprecedented 35% and base rates jump above 4%, putting pressure on household finances already feeling the pain of falling real incomes. Unemployment doubles to 12% and inflation rockets in an economy being buffeted by a sharp drop in the value of the pound. In the worst slump in almost a century, Britain’s big banks are struggling to fund themselves on the international financial markets as they face the prospect of a wave of homebuyers and big companies defaulting on their debts. This bleak scenario is the stress test the Bank of England is running on seven banks and one building society to assess their financial strength, with the results to be released at 7am on Tuesday. These are the first tests to be run concurrently on lenders and are likely to become an annual event, incorporating lessons learned from the 2008 crisis, when banks such as Royal Bank of Scotland were exposed as running on wafer-thin capital ratios and unable to withstand the storm.

Analysts at Morgan Stanley said: “Annual stress tests form the third leg of the Bank of England’s approach to regulating bank capital.” The other two involve looking at the risks attached to assets and the leverage ratio method of assessing capital strength. Although the tests are based on hypothetical scenarios, the results could have implications for the banks taking part. Dividend payouts to shareholders could be at risk or banks could be forced to pull out of businesses. Institutions could be forced to raise more capital. The Co-op Bank has already warned it might fail while Lloyds Banking Group’s hopes to pay a dividend for the first time since 2008 could be scuppered. This comes only weeks after stress tests conducted by the European Banking Authority , which the four UK banks involved – Barclays, HSBC and bailed-out Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group – all passed. Those four are now being included in the Bank of England’s test along with Co-operative Bank, Nationwide building society, Santander UK and Standard Chartered.

Some of the scenarios are the same as those tested by EBA, such as a “market tantrum” in Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey, but the UK-specific test is tougher. Threadneedle Street’s approach is also different because the regulator takes accounts of efforts banks would make to improve capital positions once the crisis is under way. But the Bank has said it could exercise discretion and come down hard on a bank even though technically it managed to struggle over the line in terms of capital strength.

Read more …

“Of course, there is a plan B [in the case of Russia being shut off from the SWIFT bank system], but in my personal opinion it would mean war ..”

The New European ‘Arc Of Instability’ (Escobar)

The European Council on Foreign Relations and Berlin think-tank Friedrich Ebert Stiftung have just reached more or less the same conclusion. If the dangerous stand-off between the EU and Russia over Ukraine is not solved, the EU could face, up to 2030, a military build-up in eastern Europe; a new arms race with NATO as a protagonist; and a semi-permanent “zone of instability” from the Baltic to the Balkans and the Black Sea. What these two think-tanks don’t – and won’t – ever acknowledge is that a new European “arc of instability” – from the Baltic to the Black Sea, as myself and other independent analysts have stressed – is exactly what the Empire of Chaos and its weaponized arm – NATO – are working on to prevent closer Eurasia integration.

By the way, the Pentagon excels in fabricating “arcs of instability.” The previous one was – and remains – massive, stretching from the Maghreb to Xinjiang in western China across the Middle East and Central Asia. Moscow has totally identified the plot; Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, once again, has made it crystal clear, in detail. And crucially, some influential sectors in Germany also did, as in members of the cultural elite destroying the notion of a new war in Europe: “Not in our name.” The same applies to those that always preach more transatlantic cooperation, extol the US’s “defining” role in Germany, and effusively praise Germany as the most American country in Europe; that’s the case of the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper – which stands for the core of the political and economic establishment in Germany.

It’s still in an embryonic stage, and has not yet made Chancellor Angela Merkel see the light; but a reverse reengineering of Atlanticist relations is already in progress in Germany. Meanwhile, the proverbial group of extremist US senators, plus the notorious poodles/vassals of Britain and Poland, haven’t stopped lobbying to shut Russia off from SWIFT – just as they did with Iran. This would be nothing but yet another declaration of (economic) war – or the economic counterpoint to NATO hysteria. In fairness, a great deal of the EU – especially Germany – knows this is madness.

Germany’s top financial paper Handelsblatt recently published a key interview with head of VTB-Bank Andrei Kostin, which has still not been translated into any major English-language paper. Kostin went straight to the point: “Of course, there is a plan B [in the case of Russia being shut off from the SWIFT bank system], but in my personal opinion it would mean war – if this type of sanction will be introduced. America and Europe did that against Iran but with Iran at that time there were no diplomatic relations, only military containment…if Russian banks’ access to SWIFT will be prohibited, the US ambassador to Moscow should leave the same day. Diplomatic relations must be finished. Banking is the most vulnerable part of the Russian economy because the system is based so strongly on the dollar and the euro.”

Read more …

Weidmann is Europe’s only hope at the banking level.

Bundesbank Chief Attacks EU For Dragging Feet Over French Deficit (Telegraph)

The head of the German central bank has criticised the EU’s decision to give France extra time to sort out its budget, hinting at a disagreement between Europe’s two most powerful economies. Jens Weidmann, the Bundesbank president, told a French newspaper that he feared last month’s decision to give France more time to spell out plans to fix its budget deficit risked giving the impression that EU rules are up for negotiation. It came a day after Fitch downgraded France’s credit rating from AA+ to AA, citing its failure to get a grip on its deficit. “Fitch’s medium-term growth forecasts are somewhat weaker and budget deficits wider than official projections,” the ratings agency said. At the end of November, the European Commission gave France an extra three months to implement reforms to shrink its budget deficit.

The country has been on course to run a deficit of 4.3% of GDP in 2015, well above the 3% EU target. By extending the deadline, the EU has saved Paris from humiliating sanctions, at least for the time being. “I would have hoped for clearer decisions,” Mr Weidmann told Le Figaro. “It would be unfortunate if the impression set in that rules are in the end up for negotiation and that budgetary consolidation can be perpetually put off by national governments.” Mr Weidmann added that bending the rules to give France, among others, more time to fix their budgets could put the EU rules’ credibility at risk. “France announced that it will not reach the agreed deficit goal in 2015 and has clearly put back the envisaged correction of its excessive deficit. For me, that does not strengthen the credibility of EU rules,” he said.

Read more …

“Cheney’s blunt talk is a win-win in Washington. His black-and-white views of the world give him a bigger bullhorn that those who see gray ..”

A Viewer’s Guide to Dick Cheney (Bloomberg)

Dick Cheney is making a rare appearance Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press to discuss the Senate Intelligence Committee’s CIA torture report. It’s an unnecessary one, really. The former vice president slipped into media chairs to trash the investigation’s findings even before the first public reports emerged on its shocking details. So here are five things you need to know as you watch:

1. He thinks the Senate report is “full of crap” and a “crock.” Cheney wasn’t a mealy-mouthed politician during his years as a top administration official. He’s further embraced that reputation since leaving the VP post. “I get to say exactly what I think,” he told Charlie Rose in June. His reaction to the Democrat-led Senate panel report has been no exception. The New York Times captured his “crock” comment. In a Fox interview that aired Wednesday, he asserted it was “full of crap,” adding: “It’s a terrible piece of work.”

2. But he hasn’t read it. Cheney acknowledged he hasn’t perused the committee’s 6,700-page investigation, or even its declassified 500-page executive summary. In fairness, he doesn’t need to. He’s in it. Cheney’s name comes up 44 times in the report. From a footnote one can glean that not only did Cheney not want to read about the his former colleague’s work, he didn’t want anyone else to either–ever. “In 2006, Vice President Cheney expressed reservations about any public release of information regarding the CIA program,” it states.

3. He said they knew. He has taken pains in both post-release interviews to refute the idea that President George W. Bush was kept in the dark about the interrogation techniques. “I think he knew everything he wanted to know and needed to know,” he said in the Fox interview. Another search through the footnotes backs him up: “March 4, 2005, Briefing for Vice President Cheney: CIA Detention and Interrogation Program.” That followed cited briefings in 2003, 2004, and before one in 2006. The president received similar backgrounders. Of course, there were also some things that Cheney, Bush and other high-ranking officials didn’t want to know.

According to the report: “A proposed phone call to the Vice President Cheney to [redacted name] solidify support for CIA operations in Country [unnamed] was complicated by the fact that Vice President Cheney had not been told about the locations of the CIA detention facilities. The CIA wrote that there was a “primary need” to “eliminate any possibility that [unnamed person] could explicitly or implicitly refer to the existence of a black site in [the country]” during the call with the vice president. There are no indications that the call occurred.”

4. He uses Meet the Press as a big platform. Although Cheney has become a fixture on Fox, he’s turned to the NBC program to make bold statements over the years. He chose MTP as his first television appearance after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 1, 2001. Host Tim Russert did the show from the presidential retreat Camp David that Sunday. Cheney’s closing line to the American people that day: “There are those in the world who hate us and will do everything they can to impose pain, and we can’t let them win.”

5. Why is anyone is still listening to Cheney, six years after he left office? Cheney’s blunt talk is a win-win in Washington. His black-and-white views of the world give him a bigger bullhorn that those who see gray, so he is viewed as the ultimate spokesman for the Republican Party’s hawk division. The fact that he outrages liberals and delights conservatives also means he can be a ratings and website bonanza for those news outlets that score one of his occasional public moments. Kudos to MTP.

Read more …

The war party rules.

US Congress Readies New Sanctions On Russia (Reuters)

U.S. lawmakers were expected on Friday to approve new sanctions on Russian weapons companies and investors in the country’s high-tech oil projects, putting more U.S. pressure on President Vladimir Putin for interference in eastern Ukraine. Late on Thursday, the Senate and House of Representatives unanimously passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act. A House panel made a small change and sent the bill back to the Senate for a last vote expected as soon as late Friday. President Barack Obama has said he opposes further sanctions on Russia unless Europe is on board. The bill, which will be sent to Obama to sign, requires him to apply sanctions on Russian state-owned arms exporter Rosoboronexport and other defense companies Congress says contribute to instability in Ukraine, Georgia and Syria. It requires Obama to penalize global companies that make large investments in crude oil drilling projects in deep waters and the Arctic.

The penalties go beyond U.S. and EU sanctions imposed in September on the world’s largest oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and BP. The legislation would also provide $350 million in military assistance to Ukraine from 2015 to 2017, and other aid for energy to the country, which has been threatened by cutoffs in natural gas supply from Russia. Republicans, who control the House and will have a majority in the Senate from January, have criticized Obama’s reaction to Russian interference in Ukraine as inadequate. “The hesitant U.S. response to Russia’s continued invasion of Ukraine threatens to escalate this conflict even further,” said Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, incoming chairman of the foreign relations committee. The unanimous support for the bill showed a “firm commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and to making sure Putin pays for his assault on freedom and security in Europe,” said Corker, who co-authored the bill with Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, the current head of the panel.

The bill authorizes Obama to penalize the top Russian natural gas producer Gazprom if he determines it is withholding significant natural gas supplies from NATO members or from Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. Lawmakers dropped a measure that would have designated Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova as non-NATO allies of Washington. Obama on Thursday said slapping fresh sanctions on Russia without a similar move by Europe would be counterproductive. In Kiev on Friday, Ukraine’s defense minister called for a doubling of the military budget to buy weapons abroad and better equip the army to fight Russian-backed separatists in the east.

Read more …

The ‘Ukraine Freedom Support Act’, no less.

Russian Anger Over New US Sanctions And Lethal Military Aid For Ukraine (AFP)

Russia responded angrily on Saturday to news that US senators had passed a bill calling for fresh sanctions against Moscow and the supply of lethal military aid to Ukraine. “Undoubtedly, we will not be able to leave this without a response,” deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov told Interfax news agency ahead of a meeting between the Russian and US foreign ministers. The Senate bill – dubbed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act – must still be approved by the White House, which has so far been reluctant to provide direct military assistance to Ukraine for fear of being drawn into a proxy war with Russia. Ryabkov blamed “anti-Russian moods” in the United States for the bill passed on Friday, which calls for additional sanctions against Russia and the delivery of up to $350 million (280 million euros’) worth of US military hardware to Ukraine.

The eight-month conflict between government forces and pro-Russian separatists has left at least 4,634 dead and 10,243 wounded, while displacing more than 1.1 million people, according to new figures released by the United Nations. It also threatens fresh sanctions against Russia, whose economy is crumbling under previous rounds of Western sanctions and a collapse in oil prices. Kiev lawmakers have hailed the bill as a “historic decision”. They have long been pressing the West to provide military support to their beleaguered army, but have so far received only non-lethal equipment. US Secretary of State John Kerry is set to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Rome against the backdrop of the hardening US stance. Ryabkov said that “the main focus at their 17th meeting this year would be on the Middle East.” There was confusion over the timing of the meeting, however, with the US state department saying it was scheduled for Monday, while the Russian embassy press office in Rome told AFP the meeting would be Sunday.

Read more …

“We should not wait until Ukraine is armed and becomes really dangerous ..”

‘If US Sends Weapons To Ukraine, Russia Should Send Troops’ (RT)

A leftist Russian MP has said the US Senate’s decision to arm the Kiev regime should prompt ‘adequate measures’ from Russia, such as deploying military force on Ukrainian territory before the threat becomes too high. “The decision of the US Senate is extremely dangerous. If it is supported by the House of Representatives and signed by their president, Russia must reply with adequate measures,” Mikhail Yemelyanov of the Fair Russia party told reporters on Friday. “It is quite possible that we should return to the decision by our Upper House and give the Russian president an opportunity to use military force on Ukrainian territory preemptively. We should not wait until Ukraine is armed and becomes really dangerous,” the lawmaker stated. Yemelyanov also noted that in his opinion the US Senate’s decision to arm Ukraine had revealed that Washington wasn’t interested in the de-escalation of the Ukrainian conflict.

He then said that US actions gave him the impression they was seeking to turn Ukraine into some sort of an “international militant targeting the Russian Federation.” “In a few years Ukraine will turn into a poor and hungry country with an anti-Russian government that will teach its population to hate Russia. They will be armed to the teeth and Ukraine and US reluctance to recognize the Russian Federation within its current borders would always provoke conflicts,” the MP said. The US Senate on Thursday passed the so called “Ukraine Freedom Support Act” allowing for the provision of lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine and imposing additional sanctions against Russia. The bill was passed by a unanimous vote, according to one of its main sponsors – Republican Senator Bob Corker. The motion is yet to be passed by the US House of Representatives. The bill was opposed by US President Barack Obama, who spoke before the White House Export Council on Thursday and said that the move would be counterproductive and create divisions with Washington’s European allies.

On March 1 this year, the Upper House of the Russian Parliament – the Federation Council – approved a resolution allowing the president to use military force on the territory of Ukraine “until the normalization of the social and political situation in that country.” The resolution was adopted in accordance with the first part of Article 102 of the constitution of the Russian Federation. However, on June 25 the Federation Council voted to repeal the legislation following a request from Vladimir Putin. The Russian president instigated the move from a desire to discharge tensions in view of the three-party talks on a peaceful settlement in the East and South-East of Ukraine.

Read more …

“Only 10 members – five from each party – opposed this reckless resolution. [..] We should thank those 10 members who were able to resist the war propaganda.”

A New Cold War with Russia? (Ron Paul)

Last week the U.S. House voted overwhelmingly in favor of an anti-Russia resolution so full of war propaganda that it rivals the rhetoric from the chilliest era of the Cold War. Ironically, much of the bill condemns Russia for doing exactly what the U.S. government has been doing for years in Syria and Ukraine! For example, one of the reasons to condemn Russia in the resolution is the claim that Russia is imposing economic sanctions on Ukraine. But how many rounds of sanctions has the U.S. government imposed on Russia for much of the past year? I guess sanctions are only bad when used by countries Washington doesn’t like. The resolution condemns Russia for selling weapons to the Assad government in Syria. But the U.S. has been providing weapons to the rebels in Syria for several years, with many going to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS that the U.S. is currently bombing!

The resolution condemns what it claims is a Russian invasion of Ukraine (for which it offers no proof) and Russian violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. But it was the U.S., by backing a coup against the democratically elected Yanukovich government in February, that first violated that country’s sovereignty. And as far as a military presence in Ukraine, it is the U.S. that has openly sent in special forces and other military advisors to assist the government there. How many times have top U.S. military and CIA officials visited Kiev to offer advice and probably a lot more? The resolution condemns Russia for what it claims are attempts to “illicitly acquire information” about the U.S. government. But we learned from the Snowden revelations that the NSA is spying on most rest of the world, including our allies! How can the U.S. claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?

The resolution attacks Russian state-funded media, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” At the same time the bill demands that the thousands of U.S. state-funded media outlets step up their programming to that part of the world! It also seeks “appropriate responses” to Russian media influence in the rest of the world. That should be understood to mean that U.S. diplomats would exert pressure on foreign countries to shut down television networks like RT. The resolution condemns what it claims is Russia’s provision of weapons to the Russian-speaking eastern part of Ukraine, which seeks closer ties with Russia, while demanding that the U.S. government start providing weapons to its proxies on the other side. As I have said, this is one of the worst pieces of legislation I can remember. And trust me, I have seen some pretty bad bills. It is nothing but war propaganda and it will likely lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.

Only 10 members – five from each party – opposed this reckless resolution. Probably most of those who voted in favor did not bother to read the bill. Others who read it and still voted in favor may have calculated that the bill would not come up in the Senate. So they could vote yes and please the hawks in their districts — and more importantly remain in good graces of the hawks who run foreign policy in Washington — without having to worry about the consequences if the bill became law. Whatever the case, we must keep an eye on those members of Congress who vote to take us closer to war with Russia. We should thank those 10 members who were able to resist the war propaganda. The hawks in Washington believe that last month’s election gave them free rein to start more wars. Now more than ever they must be challenged!

Read more …

” .. is that the only kind of torture? Is it not torture to go to a wedding in Pakistan and watch as your family is blown up by a US drone? Is it not torture to have your village water treatment plant bombed by NATO planes seeking to overthrow Gaddafi? Is it not torture for parents of the 500,000 Iraqi children who were killed by US sanctions?”

Do McCain and Obama Really Oppose Torture? (Ron Paul)

The Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on CIA torture of detainees and the reaction has been strong. While some still maintain that torture is justified, the emerging details of the program have left most of the country disgusted and ashamed. Many in the current Administration blame the Bush people for this dark chapter, claiming that President Obama finally put an end to what his predecessor started. Senator John McCain, an advocate for war and an interventionist foreign policy, has nevertheless been one of the strongest voices opposing torture. He has recalled his time as an abused prisoner of war in Vietnam to argue the importance of facing up to the recent behavior of the US government and making necessary corrections. He said he knows from personal experience that torture does not produce good intelligence, as the victims will say whatever they believe their captors want to hear to gain some relief from their agony.

Torture is morally wrong and it doesn’t work, he maintains. I believe the Senator is sincere and that his intentions are good when it comes to the torture outlined in the report. I also believe that President Obama is sincere when he denounces the practices outlined by the Senate Committee. But I think both President Obama and Senator McCain are being disingenuous and selective in their opposition to torture. It is one thing to argue that people should not have their feet broken and be forced to stand cuffed to a wall, to oppose rectal force-feeding, and to condemn water-boarding a detainee 50 or 100 times. Most of us reject this kind of torture for both moral and practical reasons.

But is that the only kind of torture? Is it not torture to go to a wedding in Pakistan and watch as your family is blown up by a US drone? Is it not torture to have your village water treatment plant bombed by NATO planes seeking to overthrow Gaddafi? Is it not torture for parents of the 500,000 Iraqi children who were killed by US sanctions? Is endorsing pre-emptive war, knowing that thousands of civilians are sure to be “collateral damage,” not support for torture? Both Senator McCain and President Obama take the moral high ground with regard to CIA torture, but both are enthusiastic supporters of past and current US military interventions that have the same effect on millions. It is one thing to oppose horrific practices that leave perhaps dozens killed or maimed. But what about practices that do the same for tens of thousands or millions? A consistent anti-torture position would also reject sanctions, “humanitarian” interventions, regime change, and preemptive war. Anything less is missing the whole point.

Read more …

It should be for many nations. But many were (are?) involved.

CIA Torture Is Reason For France To Exit NATO – Le Pen (RT)

The shocking revelations of CIA torture techniques give France a reason to exit NATO, National Front party leader Marine Le Pen said on Saturday. The report on the CIA’s former interrogation practices has drawn wide criticism since its release. “If indeed everyone is outraged by the tortures used by the US then, let’s leave NATO,” Le Pen said during an interview with Europe 1 radio channel. She wrote the same statement on her Twitter account. The US Senate Intelligence Committee’s CIA “torture report,” which details the CIA’s use of torture on prisoners in the wake of 9/11, was released by the Senate on Tuesday. After four years of research at a cost of over $40 million, the findings unveiled the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or EITs, used within the walls of covert, overseas prisons by the CIA.

The report raised serious questions over controversial tactics which included sleep deprivation, waterboarding, rectal feeding, and others. Dianne Feinstein, the committee chair, admitted that the techniques were “torture,” though the word was never used in the report. The findings also revealed that the CIA’s treatment breached the body’s legal mandate, as investigators said they found evidence of the intelligence agency’s systematic deception of Congress. Despite the methods used, the agency failed to gather information that foiled subsequent threats to US national security, the report found. Since the report’s release, prominent human rights groups have demanded to prosecute the responsible US officials listed in the document.

Despite widespread criticism and a wave of outrage sparked by the results of the Senate investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said on Wednesday that it will not be pursuing charges against those involved in the interrogations. UN special rapporteur for torture Juan Mendez told RT that the report will likely create momentum that will lead to justice. He insisted that countries complicit in the CIA torture need to carry out their own investigations. “We have lived without prosecutions now for several years, but the experience shows that when truth telling is done honestly and sincerely, it generates a debate and the debate then generates a momentum towards justice,” he said in an interview on Thursday.

Read more …