Too much of economic growth and the accompanying bull market in stocks is the result of financial engineering. Increasingly, companies seek to improve earnings or increase their share price by means that are not necessarily directly linked to their actual business.
Companies have increased the use of lower-cost debt financing, taking advantage of the tax deductibility of interest. In private equity transactions, the level of debt is especially high. Complex securities have been used to arbitrage ratings and tax rules to lower the cost of capital…
As a part of the increasingly obvious set-up of conservative movements by international banking interests and globalist think-tanks, I have noticed an expanding disinformation campaign which appears to be designed to wash the Federal Reserve of culpability for the crash of 2008 that has continued to fester to this day despite the many claims of economic “recovery.” I believe this program is meant to set the stage for a coming conflict between the Trump Administration and the Fed, but what would be the ultimate consequences of such an event?
In my article ‘The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017’, I outlined the propaganda trap being established by globalist owned and operated media outlets like Bloomberg, in which they consistently claim that Donald Trump has “inherited” an economy in recovery and ascendancy from the Obama administration. I thoroughly debunked their positions and “evidence” by showing how each of their fundamental indicators has actually been in steady decline since 2008, even in the face of massive monetary intervention and fiat printing by the Fed.
My greatest concern leading up to the 2016 election was that Trump would be allowed to win because he represents the perfect scapegoat for an economic crisis that central banks have been brewing for years.
Race–baiting: “the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people.”
This is typical of the New York Times’ race baiting.
After the author goes “slumming it” undercover at a rural Michigan Walmart she concludes that the white, working poor voted for Trump because of resentment at the loss of their white privilege.
I wonder if she had moonlighted at a majority black or South Asian-staffed Walmart in suburban Maryland, Virginia or Pennsylvania her conclusions would have been different.
By focusing on just the white working poor, the author’s goal is to increase racial divisions in the working class, to divide them and distract from the political and media establishments’ roles in turning our country into a 3rd world, banana republic for corporate exploitation.
Is she trying to imply that if they just hadn’t been so blinded by their own racist reactions to globalist Darwinism, they would have voted for Hillary Clinton?
The author doesn’t explain how these race-blind 2008 voters, that helped elect Obama, are white supremacists 8 years later.
She also doesn’t take into account that they might not have voted for Hillary for many non-racist reasons, including how Hillary’s husband passed NAFTA, and after 8 years in office her would-be White House predecessor doubled the national debt (to “bail-out” banks) and created less than 3% growth with 95% of new jobs being part-time, temp or contract.
The Washington Post works hard to distract from the fact that the American Dream has faded for the entire working class, not just a particular race, and that fading was designed to benefit global corporations and the oligarchs that own them.
White Resentment on the Night Shift at Walmart
By TRACIE McMILLAN
“Seven years ago, I joined the night shift at a Walmart in rural Michigan. For $8.10 an hour, I spent four or five nights a week filling shelves with the flour and sugar and marshmallow fluff that residents of the local county, which in 2008 voted for Barack Obama, needed to get through the holidays. Four years ago, the county went with President Obama a second time, though by a thinner margin. But this past November, the county, like the state, turned red.”
Flemming Rose is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Jacob Mchangama is director of the Copenhagen-based think tank Justitia.
Remember George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth? In his dystopian novel “1984,” its purpose was to dictate and protect the government’s version of reality. During the Cold War, Orwell’s book was banned behind the Iron Curtain, because readers perceived the novel as an allegory for their own repressive regimes.
It was a serious crime to distribute information defaming the Soviet social and political system. Such criminal laws were widely used by the Kremlin to silence dissidents, human rights activists, religious movements and groups fighting for independence in the Soviet republics. Similar laws were on the books in East Germany, Poland and other Eastern bloc countries.
Thankfully, today this landscape is much changed, but increasingly there are disturbing echoes of the past. Amid a debate about the rising influence of fake news and the danger it poses to the political and social order in the West, democratic politicians in Europe have proposed sanctions — and even prison terms — for those found responsible for distributing false information.
The BLS considers someone working 2 hours a week just as employed as someone working 40 hours a week. The employees certainly wouldn’t consider these jobs equivalent, but they are equivalent for purposes of the official unemployment rate.
Since December of 2012, I’ve written a number of articles on how the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (“BLS”) official unemployment rate is a poor barometer for measuring labor market health principally because of how the BLS determines who is in the labor force. The BLS removes people from the labor force unless they’ve looked for a job in the past 30 days. This is like looking at a professional baseball player’s batting average but ignoring the at bats where he didn’t get a hit unless they happened in the last 30 days. Doing so might tell you something, but it wouldn’t tell you what kind of season he’s having. This is part of the reason why Gallup Chairman Jim Clifton recently wrote in an excellent article that the official unemployment rate is “extremely misleading.”
New data “revealed that the Department previously had inflated the repayment rates for 99.8% of all colleges and trade schools in the country.
With the media’s focus on the Inauguration and the new president’s first week in office, a recent Wall Street Journal report has gone little noticed. According to the report, on January 13 (just one week before the outgoing administration up and went), the Obama Department of Education dropped a memorandum confessing that it had “overstated student loan repayment rates at most colleges and trade schools.” The “updated numbers” provided by the Department were analyzed by the Journal’s staff, who found that the new data “revealed that the Department previously had inflated the repayment rates for 99.8% of all colleges and trade schools in the country.”
This number (99.8 percent) is about as close as you can get to being completely wrong in measuring the extent of a crisis that higher education reformers have been warning us about for some time. In short, for the last eight years, the American people have not been told the whole story about just how bad the student-loan default crisis really is.