GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Agenda21 The UN Plan to Kill 95% of the Human Race in 100 years 10:43 min

AGENDA21 THE UN PLAN TO KILL 95% OF THE HUMAN RACE IN 100 YEARS​

(UN Food System Summit - leveraging the power of the food system to achieve the SDGs -Sustainable Development Goals. Change how people produce, consume and think about food NSDG

1660627990475.png
1660627823903.png1660627898731.png1660628091403.png


1660628285445.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
(Germany)

German Farmers Enclose the Bonn Ministry of Agriculture in Demonstration Against Climate Stupidity .37 min

German Farmers Enclose the Bonn Ministry of Agriculture in Demonstration Against Climate Stupidity​

Red Voice Media Published August 15, 2022

Joining their Dutch counterparts in protests, German farmers revolt against EU climate change policies and the agenda behind them, which, if carried out, will surely bring the agricultural industry to its knees.

https://twitter.com/RadioGenova/
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Del Bigtree: We Need To Recognize How Spectacular This Moment In This World Is Today... 3:30 min

Del Bigtree: We Need To Recognize How Spectacular This Moment In This World Is Today...​

Sunfellow On COVID-19 Published August 15, 2022

(The anger wakes you up, it gets you up in the morning, but then recognize how spectacular this moment is in this world today. He truly believes that we were selected - if we weren't selected, we chose to be here at this time. There is a giant spiritual, powerful war going on here and the warriors of light are waking up to it. This isn't an accident you're here. You're needed to be here.

This is the moment. Did you really want to be alive in some boring time in the world where nothing actually happened? ...You read about Washington crossing the Delaware - these amazing feats against incredible odds. Well, guess what? It's happening now. These are those insurmountable odds. We're up against Goliath and we just showed you we can win. We already won this round.

The world is really messed up. You chose to be here. Step up as a warrior. Of this time, they will say my God, what a spectacular generation that was! Against all odds, money pouring into every government. The first world war of governments against their people and the citizens have awakened and are somehow able to communicate with each other. They're sharing information, videos and articles. They woke up, they stood up and they took back their freedom. That is what we are going to have to read in our history books and we will be the ones who wrote the pages.

For this we were born. This is an awesome time. )
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
USDA (US Dept. of Ag. Climate-SMART Hubs ) Welcome to the USDA Climate Hubs | USDA Climate Hubs

As farmers confront the challenges of climate change, you may be hearing the term “Climate-Smart Agriculture” brought up more often.​

Climate-Smart Agriculture has often been endorsed by USDA’s Climate Hubs since their launch in 2014. Most recently, President Biden’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad cited the important role of Climate-Smart Agriculture in tackling climate change.

So, where did the term “Climate-Smart Agriculture” actually come from?​

Climate-Smart Agriculture was first defined in a 2010 report by The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The report showed that farming was adversely impacted by climate change. At the same time, the report also showed that greenhouse gas emissions from farming made climate change worse. Climate-Smart Agriculture was seen as a way for farmers to address these twin problems while maintaining yields.

Today, Climate-Smart Agriculture is guided by three main goals:​

  1. Increased productivity (sustainably intensifying agriculture)
  2. Enhanced resilience (adapting to climate change)
  3. Reduced emissions (mitigating greenhouse gas emissions)
It is worth noting that Climate-Smart Agriculture does not define any new farming practices. In fact, Climate-Smart Agriculture includes many practices that farmers already use:
  • Conservation tillage
  • Cover cropping
  • Nutrient management
  • Agroforestry
  • other practices to reduce GHG emissions
Steering these practices toward production, adaptation, and mitigation goals is what makes them “Climate-Smart”.

Regional Hubs​

California
Caribbean
Midwest
Northeast
Northern Forests
Northern Plains
Northwest
Southeast
Southern Plains
Southwest

Climate Hubs Overview
View: https://youtu.be/B8QphuoPI5U
1:06 min

Hubs
View: https://youtu.be/m0BOEyv4ZEc
1:29

Carbon sequestration
View: https://youtu.be/th3sLPjmF8M
1:34 min

Methane
View: https://youtu.be/qC4TvWyRuqw
1:30 min

___________
NOTE: I can't speak for the current USDA, but the one I worked with was very helpful. (NRCS) They had learned during the dustbowl to use a supportive, rather than directive approach to desired change. I sat in with one county committee where the local farmers and ranchers set their environmental priorities. Cost share grants would be awarded to applicants for projects such as establishing riparian vegetation. The farmer could use his equipment and labor in calculating his share. We got a lot of habitat and water quality issues addressed that way and the farmers were glad to do it.

Oh just ignore these sidebars if the are too much information. One of my most prominent character traits is an insatiable curiosity. It leads me down rabbit trails.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTcxbju_TMM
8:20 min

This Will Grip This Country...​


The Economic Ninja

SHTF PREP NOW Limits at walmart and limits at costco have started to spread all over the country. Soon we will see shortages in all of our favorite foods and items from supply chain disruptions.

See prior post #6,398

A Horrifying Drought Is Causing Widespread Crop Failures Throughout The US And Europe​

 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INTmmWxy0CQ

19:32 min (starts at 3:00)

Planting The Seeds Of Famine​

Aug 16, 2022


Operation Freedom

In this week's edition of Dave Vs. The MSM, Dr. Dave takes and objective look at globalist food supply policies and why it may be a catalyst for world wide famine. He also presents some practical things you can do to prepare. For additional great content and to join the Operation Freedom Team, please visit: davejanda.com
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4D9fLE559s
1:02:04 min

Balancing Globalization and Resilience in a Time of Crises | Davos | #WEF22

Aug 16, 2022


World Economic Forum

The Ukraine and COVID-19 crises have dealt a blow to the global economy’s highly interconnected wiring. How can we balance the benefits and efficiency of the global movement of goods, services and ideas with more local production and resilience without over-correcting?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"Has The Empire Struck Back? If So, There Is Still Little New Hope..."

TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 10:44 AM
By Michael Every of Rabobank

Empire Strikes Back

Just when the market was starting to resign itself to the deeply uncomfortable reality that central banks are serious about hiking rates further, rather than pivoting to bail out stocks, along came a flurry of data to change their minds again.

First we saw Chinese data, which stank across the board. Everything was weaker than the weakness already expected, from investment to industrial production to retail sales; and yet supply still grew faster than final demand – showing why China keeps producing huge export surpluses (i.e., these are a sign of weakness, not strength, but some analysts are unable to do simple maths, it seems). On top of that, youth unemployment remained firmly around the 20% level, which is what you expect from a struggling Eurozone periphery economy and not China – although it has the fiscal deficit and government debt to match, which the same analysts as above keep failing to notice too.

The data were so bad, in fact, that we also got a surprising 10bps rate cut from the PBOC taking the medium-term loan rate down to 2.75%. Of course, this is utterly irrelevant economically and financially, just as any further mooted 25bps cut in banks’ Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) would be. Neither step does anything to address the real problems of too much supply and too much debt. Lower bond yields only encourage both. If they could help reverse that trend, all the cuts and RRR reductions so far would have produced faster, not slower growth. (As the same set of analysts keep failing to understand, as they salivate each time such policies are rolled out.)

Then we got the US Empire PMI. To be fair, this is usually a third-tier data release. However, the staggering fall that it saw --a collapse from 11.1 to -31.3 vs. a consensus of 5-- was first tier stuff. Especially when the NAHB housing index also dropped from 55 to 49, with 19% of builders saying they are now reducing prices, and 69% that higher mortgage rates are crimping demand.

In short, the risks of a global recession are suddenly much clearer. Then again, they were *always* clear to some. And does anyone think that a central-bank pivot will make them less likely at this stage? (Apart from the analysts above.)

For once, however, commodities markets broadly supported a potential pivot in that oil prices also collapsed by around 4.5% on the day. Regular readers will know that I have kept saying that central banks could only start to consider a policy U-turn once yields AND commodities fell back together, rather than the former falling supporting the latter rising. Has the Empire struck back?

If so, there is still little New Hope: welcome to a global recession with soaring unemployment and biting deflation… that our unhappy, inflation-ravaged societies will welcome like a hole in the head. (While the same happy-clappy gang think equities can find some kind of support in that environment.) It won’t be Return of the Jedi as much as Revenge of the Sith-ed.

It does need pointing out that the move in energy prices was also driven to some degree by rumors that the Iran nuclear deal may be back on again after endless rounds of talks - and Iranian nuclear advances on the ground. Tehran says it has sent its response to the US and EU, and is now waiting for their reply. Let’s see if rumors of a deal to remove the IRGC from terrorist watchlists, and/or to guarantee that no future US administration can reverse on this deal(!) fly or not.

Many in the US and EU think that both sides saying ‘yes’ will open the door to lower energy prices, doves, olive branches, and peace, love, and harmony. I can’t say exactly what the correlation is with the analysts who don’t understand Chinese data or how central banks work, but I suspect it is high.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

US Utilities Embark On Huge Spending Spree, But There's A Catch

TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 10:20 AM
By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles of OilPrice.com

Electric utility managers run in herds so to speak. Decades ago they decided to build nuclear-generating stations and almost every utility company that could did it. Financial meltdown followed— caused by runaway cost escalations made even worse by rampant inflation. (Most of the plants eventually operated but the builders’ finances tanked and both equity and fixed income investors suffered.)

Then the “herd” decided to diversify into varied industries: real estate, mining, paper, lending, and one company even processed spent hens into chicken soup. Most of these ventures ended badly too. The lesson learned? Only go into businesses you understand. So the “herd” plunged into power generation but with some foreign utility and generation investments. The result? Huge write-downs. So it’s back to basics for the U.S. electric utility industry which has worked out fairly well so far. So what comes next? The biggest spending spree in the industry’s history, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, is because the only way to receive the varied financial incentives is by investing money for the designated purposes.

Perhaps ironically the “herd” is now investing in the same carbon-free and carbon-reducing concepts they fought in the courts for years while smilingly endorsing far-off climate goals.

What changed? The government offered carrots instead of sticks and made offers that would be financially hard to refuse.

But that brings us to financing. A few years ago, we estimated that the electric industry would have to invest an average of $350-400 billion a year over 20 years to decarbonize existing utility plant and replace related assets due for retirement. That estimate did not include any allowance to finance growth in sales, because, at the time, sales growth had stalled. Since that estimate, we’ve seen a pandemic, inflation, war-induced shortages, and now a huge batch of government incentives that could restart sales growth in the industry.

After making some heroic assumptions about improved productivity of renewables and storage (20% above current estimates) and adding in a roughly 30% increase in construction costs since the original estimates as well expenditures needed to meet newly expected growth, we believe that required expenditures for decarbonization, modernization, and growth requirement will have to exceed $400 billion per year, in real terms.

We estimate that the electric utility industry will spend something like $170-$180 billion on capital projects in 2022. That number equals roughly 10% of non-farm business capital spending in the U.S.

The industry also accounts for 8% of outstanding corporate debt and roughly 3% of new corporate debt issuance. So doubling industry spending or financing is a big deal for the industry, capital markets, and for the U.S. economy as a whole. Spending money at the pace required would put the industry into a position similar to when it was building nuclear power plants. Financially uncomfortable but do-able, especially with so much federal aid available. But with this caveat.

The U.S. electric industry plunged into its previous nuclear spending program when it had impeccable financials, top-grade bond ratings, and rock-solid dividends. Now the average utility bond rating is close to the bottom of investment grade, and the industry has taken few discernible steps to get in shape for what is coming—which is plenty of rate requests, higher fuel and power prices, and a higher cost of capital along with inflation. The industry’s finances could deteriorate again. Is the “herd” again sort of sleepwalking the industry into a several decade-long period of financial underperformance?

We all know to be skeptical of long-term estimates, especially those with more than one significant figure and decimal points, however, a big societal change like decarbonization will likely come about largely through electrification. The federal government is supporting the project and cleverly produced incentives and tax savings to encourage action. Even if the GOP returns to power, Republicans are typically reluctant to take tax benefits away from the business community. All of this adds up to a huge capital spending program by US electric companies and others in addition to electrification’s impact on the purchase of new electrical consumer goods, ranging from electric automobiles to heat pumps.

Whatever the actual capital spending number, electrification spells opportunity for some, and US electric companies appear to be the biggest potential beneficiaries. Rate base (the underpinning of earnings) will grow at a faster rate than in decades— at least 8% per year. But let’s face it, decades of monopoly behavior have not sharpened the industry’s commercial acumen. The industry tends to overlook opportunities and can only make so much money before the regulators step in. We think the major beneficiaries of the industry’s big capital program will be investment bankers who finance the expansion, companies that supply key metals, consultants who furnish expertise, construction firms and those that sell new products and services in the consumer electricity market. This is a major business opportunity. Don’t debate the virtues of the Inflation Reduction Act or the honesty of the name. Go for the business.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Despite Plunging Lumber, The Cost Of Building A Home Remains Stubbornly High​


TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 09:40 AM
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The cost of building a home has not fallen much even though raw lumber is down 65 percent from the peak...


Building Materials Prices Increase in July as Concrete Surges

The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) reports Building Materials Prices Increase in July as Concrete Surges

The prices of building materials rose 0.4% in July (not seasonally adjusted) even as softwood lumber prices increased 2.3%, according to the latest Producer Price Index (PPI) report. Prices have surged 35.7% since January 2020, although 80% of the increase has occurred since January 2021. The PPI for goods inputs to residential construction, including energy, decreased 1.2% as the prices of #2 diesel and unleaded gasoline fell 16.6% and 16.7%, respectively.

The price index of services inputs to residential construction was driven 1.4% lower in July—the third consecutive monthly decline—by a 3.8% decrease in the building materials retail index. The services PPI is 3.0% higher than it was 12 months prior and 34.9% higher than its pre-pandemic level.

The PPI for ready-mix concrete (RMC) gained 2.5% in July and has increased in 17 of the last 18 months. The latest increase is the largest since prices climbed 3.7% in March 2006. The index has climbed 6.8%, year-to-date, the largest YTD July increase in the series’ 34-year history.

Concrete Products



The PPI for ready-mix concrete (RMC) gained 2.5% in July and has increased in 17 of the last 18 months. The latest increase is the largest since prices climbed 3.7% in March 2006. The index has climbed 6.8%, year-to-date, the largest YTD July increase in the series’ 34-year history.

Lumber


Note, those represent builder materials, different from raw lumber futures down to 598 from a peak of 1686.

The PPI for softwood lumber (seasonally adjusted) saw a modest increase (+2.3%) in July. Prices have fallen 28.2% year-to-date, although the extent to which the decrease has reached home builders and remodelers is unclear.

Gypsum Materials



The PPI for gypsum products held steady in July after increasing 0.1% in June and 7.1% in May. and has soared 22.6% over the past year. After a quiet 2020, the price of gypsum products climbed 23.0% in 2021 and is up 7.6% through the first half of 2022

Steel Mill Products



Steel mill products prices decreased 3.7% in June following a 1.7% decline in June. over the two prior months. Although the index has fallen 10.1% since reaching its all-time high in December 2021, it is nearly twice the January 2021 level.

Paint



The PPI for exterior and interior architectural coatings (i.e., paint) increased 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, in July. The PPI for paint has not declined since January 2021—the prices of exterior and interior paint have risen 50.7% and 33.8%, respectively, in the months since.

Freight Transportation



Not only have freight costs increased, but the prices of services to arrange freight logistics have climbed steeply as well. Over the course of 2021, the PPI for the arrangement of freight and cargo increased 95.1%. Although prices have fallen 8.8%, YTD, they remain 63.0% above pre-pandemic levels.

Other than concrete, gypsum, paint, steel, transportation, and perhaps lumber (depending on passthroughs and time of orders), inflation is under control.

NAHB Sentiment and Price Cuts

The above charts explain why builders have only cut prices by 5 percent despite huge declines in orders and buyer traffic.
High rise construction, more dependent on concrete and steel may be having a rougher go of it.

For further discussion please see NAHB Sentiment Declines Eighth Consecutive Month Into Negative Territory
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Germany Denies WSJ Report Of Climate-Change Flip-Flop Over Nuclear Plants​


TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 09:20 AM

Update: Following the WSJ report that indicated Germany plans to postpone the closure of its last three nuclear power plants, the German spokesperson for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action said the media report about extending the life of nuclear plants "lacks any factual basis."
* * *
Germany has been mulling over the idea of extending the life of its nuclear power plant fleet for months as the 'wait and see' approach of Russia actually increasing Nord Stream 1's NatGas capacity to normal levels ahead of winter is a dangerous one.

As German power prices surged above 500 euros per megawatt-hour on the European Energy Exchange AG for the first time as the energy crisis worsened, WSJ reported Tuesday that the largest economy in Europe would "postpone" the closure of its last three nuclear power plants.

Three senior government officials told WSJ that the decision to extend the life of its nuclear power plants has yet to be formally adopted by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's cabinet and will still need a parliamentary vote.

A formal decision could be made at the end of the month or early next month. Falling Russian NatGas supplies are the driver in extending the life of the nuclear power plants slated for closure on Dec. 31.

"The reactors are safe until Dec. 31, and obviously they will remain safe also after Dec. 31," a senior official said.

The three plants were approximately 6% of Germany's power production in 2Q22, and at this point, the energy-stricken country can use all the various types of power generation it can get its hands on before winter.

Germany widely depends on NatGas-fired power plants and has reactivated mothballed coal-fired power plants to increase power generation due to shortfalls in NatGas supplies.

The move to extend the life span of nuclear power plants and reactivate coal-fired power plants shows Germany has some short-term crisis management tools. However, they might not be enough to thwart an economic crisis as energy hyperinflation decimates households and businesses well before winter begins. Just look at power prices today...



Germany has three months to save itself from a winter energy crisis.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Economic Slowdown Now, Recession Coming In 2023​

TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 08:20 AM
Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Economic slowdown but no recession! That message comes from the latest employment report, service sector data, and Federal Reserve.

“We’re not in a recession right now. We do have these two-quarters of negative GDP growth. To some extent, a recession is in the eyes of the beholder. With all the job growth in the first half of the year, it’s hard to say there’s a recession. With a flat unemployment rate at 3.6%, it’s hard to say there’s a recession.” – James Bullard, St. Louis Federal Reserve President

Such a statement certainly belies much of the economic consensus that two-quarters of negative economic growth constitutes a recession. As shown, the latest GDP report indeed met that measure.



However, as stated, some indicators suggest the economy is in a slowdown but not yet in a recession. For example, our composite Institute Of Supply Management (ISM) survey is still in expansionary territory. Since services make up about 80% of the economy today, there is currently support for economic growth. However, the data trend is negative and supports the view of an economic slowdown.



Employment also remains extremely strong. With the unemployment rate near historic lows, such does support the statement a recession is not underway. However, low unemployment rates are historically pre-recessionary and will reverse quickly as a recession takes hold.



While neither measure suggests the economy has entered a recession yet, such does not preclude one from occurring. Many indicators suggest individuals “feel” like the economy is in a recession, such as our composite consumer sentiment index. Historically, a recessionary environment was present when consumer confidence and expectations declined below 80.



Notably, given short-term economic dynamics, we could see a bump in economic growth due to back-to-school spending in Q3 and holiday shopping in Q4.

However, I suspect that as the Fed continues its aggressive mission to combat inflationary pressures, a recession in 2023 is likely.

The Fed’s Fight

While James Bullard, and others currently directing the monetary policy regime, suggest they can quell inflation with only an economic slowdown, history suggests otherwise. Such is because the Fed makes its policy decisions based on lagging economic data.

As noted previously, the Fed is basing its ability to hike based on strong employment rates. However, historically, the Fed hikes rates to a point where “something breaks.”



That breaking point occurs because the real-time economy adjusts to monetary policy changes. However, data such as employment and inflation can take several months to catch up to the actual economy.

Notably, roughly 40% of CPI is Home Owners Equivalent Rent which has roughly a 3-month lag. As shown, if inflation slows dramatically to just 2% annualized, it will take until the end of 2023 to return to the Fed’s target rate. Any higher rate of growth keeps inflation elevated much longer.



Given this lag effect, the Fed will continue lifting rates to slow economic demand to bring inflation back to its target. However, the actual impact on consumers and economic activity is not reflected in CPI on a timely basis. Such creates the probability of the Fed over-tightening monetary policy, turning an economic slowdown into a more severe economic contraction.

Of course, this is what history tells us will happen.



Monetary supply also tells us the Fed is likely making a mistake with its current aggressive stance on inflation. As discussed recently, inflation is the consequence of restricted supply due to the economic shutdown and increased demand from “stimulus” checks. The massive surge in M2 money supply has reversed and has about a 9-month lead on inflation.



While the Fed is hiking rates to quell inflation, the contraction of the money supply is doing the job for them.

Driving With The Rearview Mirror

There is little doubt we are amidst an economic slowdown. With the Federal Reserve focused on combatting inflation by tightening monetary policy, thereby slowing economic demand, logic suggests that economic data trends will continue to decline.

As the Fed continues to hike rates, each hike takes roughly 9-months to work its way through the economic system. Therefore, the rate hikes from March 2020 won’t show up in the economic data until December. Likewise, the Fed’s subsequent and more aggressive rate hikes won’t be fully reflected in the economic data until early to mid-2023. As the Fed hikes at subsequent meetings, those hikes will continue to compound their effect on a highly leveraged consumer with little savings through higher living costs. We have shown previously that the consumer is exceptionally unprepared for such an outcome.



Given the Fed manages monetary policy in the “rear view” mirror, more real-time economic data suggests the economy is rapidly moving from economic slowdown toward recession. The signals are becoming clearer from inverted yield curves to the 6-month rate of change of the Leading Economic Index.



The media, and the White House, will likely proclaim victory by stating the first two quarters of 2022 were not a recession but only an economic slowdown.
However, given the lag effect of changes to the money supply and higher interest rates, indicators are pretty clear recession risk is very probable in 2023.

For investors, such suggests the current market rally is not the beginning of a new bull market. Instead, investors will likely get lured into a bear market rally with disappointing outcomes.

Currently, investors are hoping to catch “the Fed pivot market bottom,” however, in a bear market, it often pays to be late rather than early.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Deglobalization Is Inflationary​

TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 07:35 AM
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Price cutting is being replaced with price gouging, a substitution that consumers recognize as inflation...

Globalization was deflationary, Deglobalization is inflationary. The entire point of globalization is to 1) lower costs as a means of maximizing profits and 2) find markets for surplus domestic production. Both serve to export deflation as offshoring production keeps prices stable (and profits high) and dumping surplus production in high-cost developed-nations suppresses their domestic producers' pricing power.

Deglobalization is inflationary because reshoring production increases costs. Securing production from the threats of geopolitical blackmail, civil/economic disorder in the producing nations or broken supply chains requires moving essential supply chains back to the security of the domestic economy.

This move costs money, and production costs are higher in developed economies for all the reasons that drove corporations to move production overseas: labor costs, healthcare, environmental compliance, social benefits and taxes are higher.

Now that resources have been depleted in many producer countries, the costs of producing essential materials is rising. China, a major exporter of rare earth minerals essential to the renewable energy sector, is now exploiting neighbor Myanmar's resources: Myanmar's poisoned mountains.

As developing-world nations prospered from manufacturing exports, their workforces have demanded higher pay and improved financial security. Poisoning the water, soil and air is highly profitable but the public pays the price, and eventually the public demands some environmental limits on the toxic dumping of globalization.

The warm and fuzzy narrative of how wonderful globalization was for everyone was always bogus. As I explained back in 2009, importing deflation to the developed world and maximizing profits by turning the developing world into a toxic waste dump was neoliberal capitalism's "fix" for stagnation: Globalization and China: Neoliberal Capitalism's Last "Fix" (June 29, 2009).

Globalization enabled mobile capital to swoop in, buy up local assets, create new markets for credit and imported goodies and then sell at the top before all the external costs of globalization came due and the credit bubble burst.

Now that the global credit bubble is bursting, the mobile capital exploitation party is over. Now the game is to exit Periphery nations and move the winnings of globalization to the Core for safekeeping.



Globalization lowered costs at the expense of quality, another "win" for Neoliberal Capitalism as planned obsolescence is now the implicit backdrop of globalization: poor quality goods soon fail, requiring the hapless consumer herd to buy a replacement. Since developed-world consumers already have everything (rent a larger storage unit for all your stuff), the only way to goose demand is to crapify everything so replacing low-quality goods with new low-quality goods keeps production lines and profits humming.

This works great until supply chains break down and consumers run out of discretionary income. Globalization only works if every part works perfectly, as redundancy and buffers (inventory, multiple suppliers, etc.) have been stripped to maximize cost-cutting and profits.



Now globalized perfection is breaking down and costs rise. Price cutting is being replaced with price gouging, a substitution that consumers recognize as inflation.

Deglobalization is not a quick or painless process. The ride down will be bumpy and cost increases have many sources. Profits will become harder to come by and scarcities will knock down global rows of dominoes in unexpected ways. External costs that piled up for the past 30 years have come due and must be paid.

Inflation isn't transitory or within the control of central banks. The forces at work are far beyond the reach of central bankers. Cost of credit matters, but so does the real world.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Inflation Makes Everybody Poorer (And It's Government's Fault)

TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 12:20 PM
Authored by André Marques via The Mises Institute,

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the US was 9.1 percent in June. Taking into account that the government lies about inflation, it is better to consider Shadow Government Statistics’ CPI (based on the 1980s CPI methodology), which was (as of July 13) about 17 percent.

The government claims that this high CPI is due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (you could argue that, one of the reasons is the sanctions on Russia’s economy, which don’t do much to harm to the Russian government and hurts ordinary people both inside and outside Russia). But this is just an excuse for the government to not admit the blame. It is clear the war has an influence on the CPI, as it eliminates the supply of various goods and services, which ends up increasing prices. However, the CPI has been going up since February 2021.

The 2020 and 2021 lockdowns (and the followed supply shocks) were also a big factor, but the real reason prices are going up is the inflation (monetary expansion) created by the US government both in 2020 and 2021.

Yes, supply shocks cause increases in SOME prices in the economy, but not a general increase in the prices of goods and services. If there is a supply shock of certain goods (making their prices higher), but the money supply does not change, there will be a new equilibrium of supply and demand for the various goods and services in the economy (since the money supply is the same and individuals will have to change the allocation of their budget, so the prices of the goods that will have a lower demand will decrease).

Once the supply shock of these goods ended, their supply would increase, and their prices would decrease (changing the equilibrium of supply and demand once again). Only an increase in money in circulation can make ALL (or almost all) prices in the economy rise simultaneously, as the value of money decreases and more units of currency are needed to pay for goods and services.

Inflation (the expansion of the money supply) and the consequent increase in prices is a disguised tax. The US government increased its spending and its budget deficit. So, it issued more debt securities, which were mostly purchased by the Federal Reserve (Fed) through an increase in the monetary base (M0). Then, the government spent the newly created money, increasing the amount of money in circulation in the economy (M1 and M2), which tends to make prices higher.

Note that the government increased its spending without raising taxes in the same proportion. The cost of the increase in government spending was paid by the population (nothing from the government is free; not even for the poor, who suffer the most from taxes, as their incomes are lower) not by taxes, but by the increase in prices that occurred due to inflation.

Also bear in mind that government borrowing, by itself, is not inflationary. If debt securities are all absorbed by the market (by investors and financial institutions) no new money is created by the central bank.

However, even in this case the economy is damaged because when the government goes into debt it appropriates resources that could be used for productive investments (which could increase the productivity of the economy and make prices lower). In addition, government indebtedness also implies interest costs. To pay the interest (which tends to increase as debt grows), governments often raise taxes and/or borrow even more. The interest cost represents more resources that are expropriated from the economy by the government.

Price increases hurt everyone, especially the poor and the lower middle class (who have fewer resources). Due to rising prices, individuals will inevitably have to make budget cuts, buying fewer goods and services. The standard of living goes down. At best, individuals do not make budget cuts, but save less than before.

The poor and the lower middle class are also more heavily affected because, due to rising prices, wealthy people and the upper middle class (who have enough income to afford to not make budget cuts) end up saving and investing less (of course, they barely feel this change themselves, but it is a great cut in the savings and investments in the economy). If there is less investment in the economy, productivity does not increase (or even decreases) and prices tend to increase in the medium and long run.

But even the wealthy people and the upper middle class can be heavily affected by rising prices caused by inflation. Imagine, for example, a retail company. If prices rise, individuals (notably the poor and the lower middle class, which are the majority) will stop buying certain products (after all, their income is not high enough for them to have the luxury to afford not to do it).

Therefore, even with rising prices, the company’s profit decreases (or the company ends up incurring loss), also considering that, due to inflation, the costs of producers and the retail company increase. This is what happened a few months ago with Target, which registered lower profits. The owners of large retail companies and companies that produce the goods happen to register lower profits (or even incur losses), and investors and financial institutions that buy the stocks of these companies also lose (since the stocks are worth less and the companies tend to pay less dividends or even suspend it).

Therefore, everyone is worse off due to government-generated inflation. But it is the poor and the lower middle class who take most of the bullets.

Governments always claim to help the poor and the lower middle class. But these are precisely the ones who bear most of the cost of governments (taxes, indebtedness, regulations, and inflation). After all, the upper middle class and the wealthy can turn to lawyers, accountants, and tax consulting agencies to allocate their assets in order to pay less in taxes (all legally).

And it’s a good thing they do so (if not, there would be even less investment in the economy and prices would be even higher). They may also buy a lot of gold, invest in assets priced in currencies that are less inflated, or resort to any other form of wealth protection.

Therefore, the poorest are the ones who actually pay for the government. It is precisely because of governments that the poor and the lower middle class, in most cases, don’t get richer. It is the government that perpetuate poverty, precisely to justify their existence by pretending to help the poorer. After all, if there were no monetary inflation created by governments, prices would tend to decrease as the productivity of the economy rose and the standard of living would rise.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"Worst I've Ever Seen": Cotton Prices Soar After Historic USDA Cut Amid Megadrought​


TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 03:55 AM

US cotton prices continued to surge above the boom days of 2010-11 after a massive crop estimate cut by the USDA, shocking Wall Street analysts and traders, due primarily to a megadrought scorching farmland of Texas, according to Bloomberg.

Futures in New York for December delivery were up 4.5% to $1.1359 a pound and up more than 21% this month.



"I don't think you can put a top on prices right now," Louis Barbera, the managing partner for VLM Commodities, told Bloomberg.

"I have been going to Texas for more than ten years, and this is by far the absolute worst I have ever seen, said Barbera.

What Barbera is referring to is the drought situation in Texas. The long stretches of triple-digit temperatures and limited rainfall this summer have turned vast amounts of farmland to dust, hurting cotton farmers in the South Plains of West Texas.



Last Friday, the USDA's bigger-than-expected cut to domestic cotton crop stunned many on Wall Street. Crop output plunged to 12.57 million bales, the lowest in a decade. The cut also pushed down the US from the world's third-largest producer to the world's fourth.

Barbera said the western Texas region (around Lubbock and Lamesa), the epicenter of America's cotton-growing belt, has "literally nothing" in fields that are just desert sand. He said fields that had drip irrigation were harvestable, but ones that weren't weren't salvageable.

1660679917332.png

"If cotton is not readily available from other sources, the scarcity of supply from the US could support prices globally, said Jon Devine, supply-chain economist for research Cotton Inc.

"The market has struggled to find the balance between the weakened demand environment and limited exportable supply in recent months. The conflict between these two influences makes it difficult to discern a clear direction for prices and suggests continued volatility," Devine continued.

Supporting prices are bullish bets by money managers turning positive for the first time since June as prices rally.



Louis Rose, director at Rose Commodity Group, said the USDA's cut to US output is "shocking" and comes at a time of the highest consumer inflation in decades.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Europe's Nuclear & Hydropower Falter With Droughts​


TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2022 - 02:45 AM

As Europe looks to secure alternative energy sources to Russian gas in light of the war in Ukraine, Statista's Anna Fleck warns, a new threat to energy security is stirring, this time from droughts.

The droughts hitting Europe are impacting everything from food to transportation to the environment.


In Italy, the River Po has fallen two meters below its normal levels, seeing rice paddy fields dry out. Meanwhile, Germany’s River Rhine has become so shallow that cargo vessels can’t pass through it fully loaded, pushing up shipping costs, and France’s Tille River, in the Burgundy region, is now a dried up bed covered in thousands of dead fish.

But Europe’s energy production has also been impacted. As Statista's chart below shows, hydroelectric power has fallen some 20 percent since 2021.

This partly comes down to the fact reservoirs have been drying up in countries such as Italy, Serbia, Montenegro and Norway. The latter, according to Bloomberg, usually a major hydroproducer, is even taking the steps to reduce exports in order to prioritize refilling its reservoir’s low water levels so the country can maintain domestic production.

Infographic: Europe’s Nuclear & Hydropower Falter With Droughts | Statista
You will find more infographics at Statista

Nuclear power too has fallen since 2021. One reason for this is that France has had to shut down several of its nuclear power plants because the rivers Rhone and the Garonne have been too warm to be able to cool down its reactors. France is 70 percent dependent on nuclear energy and is a key exporter of electricity, usually supplying Italy, Germany and the UK. It’s important to note here however, that other problems are troubling France’s nuclear fleet too. A significant number of the country’s power plants have had to be powered down recently due to malfunctions and maintenance issues, which had been delayed because of the pandemic. These combined reasons mean, according to Wired, that the country’s hydropower output is down nearly 50 percent.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

‘Woke’ Military Policies to Blame for Recruitment Crisis, Servicemembers Say

By J.M. Phelps August 14, 2022 Updated: August 16, 2022biggersmaller Print

The U.S. Army is expected to fall nearly 40,000 troops short of its recruiting goals over the next two years. Fiscal year 2022 is expected to miss the mark by 10,000 troops, while the number in fiscal year 2023 could reach 28,000. These figures mean that this year is on track to be the Army’s worst recruiting year in almost 50 years.

The Army plans to circumvent the problem by offering $1 billion for its recruiting program and placing more emphasis on the use of its reserve units.

The Epoch Times reached out to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command for comment, and Maj. Charles Spears of the Combined Arms Center replied to various inquiries about the state of recruiting. Spears offered several reasons for the Army’s recruiting challenges in the years ahead.

First, he said, “only 23 percent of American youth are qualified to serve without a waiver, [noting that] obesity, addiction, medical, and behavioral health are the top disqualifiers for service.”

The Army is also competing with corporate America, he said, adding that “social media’s virtual public square shapes the values and perceptions of American youth, which is increasingly unfamiliar with the benefits of Army service.”

According to Spears, the American population is “increasingly disconnected” from serving in the Army and military service.

“Oftentimes, influencers [such as parents, teachers, and coaches] do not recommend military service,” he said.

Spears also noted that “the share of youth who have seriously considered military service is at a historic low of 9 percent.”

Finally, Spears cited issues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The COVID-19 pandemic severely limited the ability of recruiters to interact with prospects in person, [and] also exacerbated academic and physical fitness challenges, limiting the pool of qualified applicants.”

As a result of the pandemic, there has been a 9 percent decrease in Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores, as well as increased applicate obesity, he said.

In addition to these factors, servicemembers have expressed other concerns that they say have contributed to the recruitment crisis.

Army Boots on the Ground
The Epoch Times spoke to an active-duty Army soldier with over 15 years of service on the condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals. He is gravely alarmed about the Army falling short on recruitment numbers.

“In the past,” he said, “the Army targeted a specific demographic of people based on their values, [and these recruits] were patriots and loved America.” In today’s general population, he doesn’t see the same interest in patriotism.

“Much of the country doesn’t love America like it use to,” he said. “And with a military no longer upholding the values, the oaths, or the creeds it once did, what kind of new recruits should we expect [to join the Army]?” he asked.

“From a macro perspective, we had a significant breach of trust in the last election.” By oath, he said, the military swears to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But the U.S. military has said nothing about the previous election, according to the soldier. “I’m not saying there is a final answer, but as defenders of the Constitution, they owed open and transparent conversation to the force and to the American people,” he said.

Instead, he said, “they happily encourage mandated vaccines, back the transgender issue, and speak out in opposition to the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to Roe v. Wade—all of which are very political.”

In his opinion, “we now have a Department of Defense [DoD] that has taken various political positions that are very much opposed to the heart of America.”

All the while, he said, the size of battalions is shrinking. “Some are less than two-thirds of where they need to be,” he said. And many of those who remain are not “usable deployables.”

He said, “Much of America is missing the fact that the Army is intentionally kicking people out in a precarious way that it knows is unnecessary, because the data shows that it’s unnecessary.” He is under the impression that “our military is intentionally being weakened.”

Rather than watching the military “decay,” he said, “military leadership needs to take action for the good of the America people.” But he’s not convinced this will happen, because “for the most part, the higher-ups are cowards and they lack the personal courage to take the actions needed to put an end to this sad state of affairs.”

As recruiting woes mount and solutions appear scant for the U.S. Army, service members of the nation’s other military branches are equally concerned.

Maj. Paul Lewis (a pseudonym), a recognized subject matter expert on personnel retention matters within the Marine Corps who previously sounded the alarm on personnel end-strength issues within the DoD, spoke to The Epoch Times once again.

According to Lewis, military readiness has been impacted in the past few years by “a toxic combination of poor leadership and the politicization of the military.” He said there has been “a steady reduction in readiness due primarily to reckless policies that have eroded the trust of the rank and file service-members.

“It really came to light in the wake of COVID when service members began to see that senior leaders chose to put politics ahead of military readiness,” he said. “Senior officers and senior civilian executives have run the military into the ground in the name of career stability and progression instead of keeping faith with Marines and their families.”

Potential recruits are not signing up to serve in the Marine Corps as they have in previous years, and Lewis attributes this to “a rejection of the bureaucratic leadership.” For American citizens to choose to serve in the “all-volunteer force,” he states, “they want to be able to trust that their leadership has their best interest at heart, and that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore.”

According to Lewis, this erosion of trust can be “manifested in the military loss in Afghanistan as well as how COVID vaccine mandates have been enforced in a draconian and illegal manner,” and this according to him has led to “a complete loss of trust and confidence in the leadership.”

In the years ahead, he said, these issues will have an impact on the national In the years ahead, he said, these issues will have an impact on the national security of the United States. “Within the national security apparatus,” Lewis said, “we need a certain number of troops to man the line, this is known as statutory end-strength and is set by Congress, [because] we have defense obligations all over the world with partners and allies.”

“A small gap in readiness, losing 100 or 200 recruits or unplanned departures from the service might be acceptable,” Lewis admitted. “But when you get into the numbers of 40,000 or more in a single year, it’s no longer just a minor blip on how we deploy our military, but it is an unmitigated disaster,” he said. “It will affect every decision made on how we are going to meet our obligations and ultimately we will be increasingly relying on less troops to do the same job.”

In light of losses associated with the mandated vaccine, Lewis said it has become apparent to him that “our leadership is willing to sacrifice military service members, forcing them out the door in the name of financial reprioritization.” He said, “American people need to be aware that the military is using these personnel cost savings to commit additional resources to yet another round of equipment modernization that is lining the defense industries pocket.

“But all the while, they’re losing the individuals qualified to operate these systems,” he said. “For example, you cannot fly an F-35 with a student pilot; you need an experienced pilot with years of operational flight time.

“When the cards are down and we need to face our adversaries, we need experienced warfighters using this equipment,” said Lewis. “Unfortunately, the defense lobby has just about every congressional office enthralled with the idea of higher defense spending with their companies rather than investing in its people.”

According to Lewis, “the American soldier is the country’s most valuable resource, [but] our leadership and our decisionmakers have devalued their people” who serve in the military. “This is sadly exemplified in the dead Marines on the deck in Afghanistan because of poor politically driven leadership.”

If members of the nation’s military were valued, he said, “these same people should be raising legitimate concerns about vaccine efficacy, but they are failing the American people once again.”

Lewis contends that “generational damage” is being done and the core of rank-and-file service members whose families have traditionally served will no longer choose to do so in the future because of the utter betrayal they are facing from their own leaders.

“It’s reckless, like a child playing with fire,” said Lewis. “Do the math: it is impossible to have an all-volunteer force if you don’t have volunteers.” Moving forward, he questions whether the U.S. military will be able to continue to “meet the expectations of the American people and keep the homeland safe.”

Air Force Mission Ignored
A master sergeant currently serving in the Air Force has been a recruiter for nearly a decade. As the military vaccine mandate began to be enforced, he was “alienated from the service” for refusing to take the shot. “Many in the Air Force have stood up for freedoms our entire career, but when our freedom is on the line, who’s going to stand up for us?” he asked. He has witnessed junior airmen break down in tears over being coerced and threatened into taking the vaccine.

Air Force Recruiting Service is facing its lowest recruiting numbers since 1999 according to senior leadership’s public statements, he said. “While we lose decades of experience to mandates and poor leadership decisions,” he said, “we will be forced to ease standards just to continue the mission.” He further added, “I see firsthand in recruiting that the sentiment towards joining the military has been negatively impacted over the last year.”

What’s more, he said, “there is an imbalanced focus on diversity over performance when deciding the fate of an airman’s career. We’re focusing on the wrong things instead of the mission, which is protecting and serving the nation,” he said. “Wokeism combined with bad policies are destroying the military and if we don’t course correct soon, it could cause irreparable harm, in my opinion.”

Navy is Getting Weaker
A Navy lieutenant said, “the DoD has forgotten the first rule of holes—and that’s when you get into one, you stop digging.” According to the recruiter, “the Navy has probably alienated the majority of its recruiting base that you could have always counted on historically.”

Mandatory vaccines are an issue, he said. But “social experimentation” within the Department of Defense is also a problem. For example, in the digital signature of Rear Admiral Alexis T. Walker, he said, “he has his own little personal font with a rainbow hue for his pronouns.” Walker is the commander of Navy Recruiting Command.

The Clinton administration’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was once “a hot button for the military,” he said. “But fast forward nearly 30 years, and transgenders have been normalized.”

To that end, he said, “The fact that you would set a double standard in terms of military readiness where you would claim an unvaccinated service member isn’t ready, but somebody in the middle of a life-changing transition that’s on hormones is ready and is not a threat to readiness, bothers me.”

By his estimation, senior leadership of the military has “bought into a big lie that somehow the population at large wants a military which reflects the population diversity of the country.” He disagreed, stating that “the public simply wants to know that they have a military that’s capable and lethal, and could successfully defend this nation on a moment’s notice.”

Apart from “a few niche areas, like the special warfare communities, military readiness is questionable at best,” he said. “We’ve gone too far into the weeds politically, which has resulted in a weaker, political military force.”

Coast Guard Gone Woke, Too
Continuing to actively serve in the Coast Guard, a “Coastie” with recent experience as a recruiter is very disturbed that he could be “throwing years of dedicated service down the drain” for refusing to take the vaccine. It’s clear that he’s not the only one impacted, as he said, the Coast Guard will fall far short of making recruiting mission this year. While he said it is hard to pinpoint exactly why, the vaccine mandate is a large part of the issue. “There’s definitely been some young folk who said they’re not going to join because they don’t want to get the COVID vaccine,” he explained.

In addition, he said, “The woke culture has bugged some people.” In one example of wokeness infiltrating the Coast Guard, he said, “When writing awards or performance reviews, I can’t even identify myself as a he, [adding that] I can only identify myself by my name, rank, or by they.” He finds it strange that he cannot assume his own gender. Taking diversity and inclusion to this extreme, alongside the vaccine mandate, has hurt retention in his opinion.

The Coast Guardsman strongly believes that “medical and fitness standards that were once non-negotiable are all on the table right now.” When asked about the reason, he goes on to say, “It seems like the average teenager these days has a much higher likelihood of being prescribed antidepressants, asthma inhalers, or attention deficit medications, all of which used to be a hard stop for someone trying to join.”

“But if recruiters can’t make mission and mission execution suffers, eventually something has to give,” he said. “The question that bothers me is how much does race and gender now play into the likelihood of those medical waivers being granted?”

Each anonymous interviewee emphasized that their views do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy, or Coast Guard. The Epoch Times also reached out to the recruiting headquarters for the Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, and Navy for comment.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
(UK)


UK Average Electricity Cost Will Soar To $5,370 Per Year By 2023

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Net Zero by 2050
Outgoing UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson pushed for a net zero carbon policy by 2050.

Let's discuss the costs.

Please consider Britain’s Net Zero Lesson for the U.S.

Households are likely to see the average bill for electricity and natural gas climb to £4,400 ($5,370) a year in the first half of 2023, according to a report this week from Cornwall Insight, a consulting firm. This is after the regulatory price cap shot up 54% to about £2,000 in April with another 40%-plus increase due in October and further increases after that.

Britain’s median income after direct taxes is £31,400. Skyrocketing fuel prices could push 10.5 million households, or one-third, into fuel poverty next year, says the End Fuel Poverty Coalition. Fuel poverty is when energy costs drag household disposable income below the government’s official poverty line.

That doesn’t include the energy costs households pay indirectly. Businesses, whose prices aren’t capped, have seen electricity costs rise in the past year between 45% and 122% depending on company size, and gas prices between 131% and 185%.

Average Cost of Electricity per kWh in the UK 2022
Also note the rising cost of Electricity per kWh in the UK 2022

According to official figures, the average electricity bill in the UK was around £764 per year for 2021, but it will be significantly higher in 2022—possibly 2.6X higher.

Due to the energy price cap rising on 1 April 2022, households on default tariffs paying by direct debit are seeing an increase from £1,277 to £1,971 per year for both gas and electric (an increase of around £693 or 54%). And projections for October are now anticipating a further 82% rise.

By the end of 2022 we could see costs of 51 p/kWh for electricity and over 13 p/kWh for gas, assuming an 82% rise in October.

Pounds to Dollars Math
£764 * 2.6 * $1.2/£ = $2,384 for 2022. Cornwall estimates will double again in 2023.

If we go with Cornwall's estimates, the average household makes £31,400 but will spend £4,400 on electricity in 2023.

If accurate, that's 14% of the entire after tax budget just for electricity.

Britons will have to choose between heat and eat.

Scotland Cut Down 14 Million Trees For Wind Turbines
In other news, Scotland Cut Down 14 Million Trees For Wind Turbines

The tree removal seems especially ironic given that world leaders supposedly agreed to end deforestation by 2030 at the recent COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland.

“‘The figure for trees felled for windfarm development on Scotland’s forests and land, as managed by FLS, over the past 20 years is 13.9 million. However, it should be noted that these trees – being a commercial crop – will have eventually have been felled and passed into the timber supply chain in any case.’”

Yet once wind turbine instillations are placed on the site where the trees once were, the trees can no longer be regrown there as part of a sustainable timber supply chain.

Not to worry.

None of these things can possibly happen in the US because of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Ed Dowd: America Is Still Yet To See ‘Meat Of The Recession’ Due To Fed’s Weak Actions 8:26 min

Ed Dowd: America Is Still Yet To See ‘Meat Of The Recession’ Due To Fed’s Weak Actions​

Bannons War Room Published August 16, 2022

(No summary given. Stagflation on precipice of real economic decline. Collapse in demand in the fall, but prices remain high. China hit a demographic wall in 2020 and are now collapsing. Debt in unproductive assets.

We go into collapse next year. Dire, uncertain landscape. All sorts of indicators going south. We are about to enter the meat of the recession. They will try to do more stimulus. The Fed will do quantitative tightening around Dec, but it will be too late.

We are going to suck down China's economy and they will need to look for an enemy. Their biggest fear is their own people. China in his estimation is done for a long, long time. )
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Dave Brat: Modern Monetary Theory Prioritizes Complete Governmental Control Of The Business Cycle 7:00 min

Dave Brat: Modern Monetary Theory Prioritizes Complete Governmental Control Of The Business Cycle​

Bannons War Room Published August 16, 2022

(No summary given Modern Monetary Theory CATO Journal vol. 39 article. (See post below) (Comment: I admit that this is over my head. So take notes with a grain of salt)

Brat: Farmer 50 years ago went to banker for loan. They knew each other and there was some trust involved. The bank takes the money and loans it out and money is created. The farmer has a business. He has done his analysis and has determined the project will be a profitable venture. The banker agrees and gives him a loan.

Quantitative easing comes along and there is no business that asks for a loan any more. The Federal reserve just throws money out at the system. Zero FED funds rate for a decade. They give money out to the 20 big banks. There is no business proposition. They just hope there is one that can use this. But there's not. It is just like China throwing good money after bad and it's going to collapse. We're going to see that coming.

Then icing on the cake, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) sees this. The FED aims at an interest rate target a of 2%. MMT comes along and says you can spend as much money as you want federal government. In fact, the federal government should be in charge of monetary policy and should take over the FED and control every aspect of the economy. So the FED is no longer independent. It's part of politics and you can do infinite spending prioritized by the federal government, not by business.

That is socialism/communism. It is why AOC is totally in favor of MMT.

Bannon - we also have a problem that we don't have an independent FED. It is owned by the 24 brokers/banks and they take care of themselves. The scale of what they've done in an ever increasing continuous boom and bust cycle. The concentration of wealth they have created for themselves and their clients. It has to be dismantled and restructured.

Brat: We also have to get rid of the Administration, which has distorted things through regulations so you don't know what prices mean any more. Nothing is going through the local banker to see if it is a good or bad business proposition. If you fail there is bankruptcy. There is so much liquidity that the FED has papered over failure.

It is a cultural problem as to whether our culture can sustain any pain. They are trying to bypass the pain of the business cycle. This is a road to depression. Free markets is getting rid of the Administrative State.)
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Modern Monetary Theory: A Critique

FALL 2019 • CATO JOURNAL VOL. 39 NO. 3
By Warren Coats

REFERENCES on website

Modern monetary theory (MMT) claims that government can spend more freely by borrowing or printing money than is assumed by conventional monetary theory. According to Mackintosh (2019):

The most provocative claim of the theory is that government deficits don’t matter in themselves for countries — such as the U.S. — that borrow in their own currencies… . The core tenets of MMT, and the closest it gets to a theory, are that the economy and inflation should be managed through fiscal policy, not monetary policy, and that government should put the unemployed to work.
MMT has become popular with Green New Dealers because it claims to remove or at least loosen traditional constraints on government spending.

Although MMT makes much of its preferred way of looking at the process of producing money, it does not credibly reveal more scope for deficit spending without inflation. Its proposal to use taxation as a monetary policy instrument ignores decades of efforts to separate monetary policy decisions from fiscal/spending decisions in light of the differences in the political motivations of each. In fact, despite its efforts to change how we view monetary and fiscal policies, MMT abandons market‐based countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies for targeted central control over the allocation of resources. It would rely on specific interventions to address “road blocks” upon the foundation of a government‐guaranteed employment program.

MMT is an unsuccessful and empty attempt to convince us that we can finance the Green New Deal and a federal job guarantee program painlessly by printing money. But it remains true that shifting our limited resources from the private to the public sector should be judged by whether society is made better off by such shifts (Coats 2008). Printing money does not produce free lunches.

This article reviews MMT’s approach to describing the process by which money is produced by banks (broad money) and by the central bank (base money). It analyzes whether MMT’s characterization of the process reveals new, previously overlooked opportunities for the government to spend more without taxing more. It dissects MMT’s claim that because it can borrow in its own currency it can spend more — by printing more money — without crowding out private sector activity. It concludes by analyzing MMT’s claim that monetary policy should be shifted from the central bank to the fiscal tax authorities.

How Is Money Produced Today?
MMT motivates its case for monetary finance and the use of taxation to regulate the money supply by explaining the money supply process with a different emphasis than is usual. The traditional story for the fractional reserve banking world we live in is that a central bank issues base or high‐powered money (currency held by the public plus bank reserves held at the central bank), and banks produce more money on top of that. The public deposits some of the central bank’s currency in banks, which provides banks with money they can lend. When a bank lends such deposits, it deposits the loan in the borrower’s deposit account with her bank, thus creating more money for the bank to lend. This famous money‐multiplier story, a favorite in Money and Banking classes, reflects a money supply much larger than the base money issued by the central bank. In July 2008, base money (M0) in the United States was $847 billion dollars while the currency component of that plus the public’s demand deposits in banks (M1) was almost twice that — $1,442 billion dollars. Including the public’s time and savings deposits and checkable money market mutual funds (M2) the amount was $7,730 billion. I am reporting data from just before the financial crisis in 2008 because after that the Federal Reserve began to pay interest on bank reserve deposits at the Fed in order to encourage them to keep the funds at the Fed rather than lending them and thus multiplying deposits. This policy greatly decreased the ratio of total money to base money — that is, it reduced the money multiplier. In October 2015, at the peak of base money, M0 was $4,060 billion, of which only $1,322 billion was currency in circulation, and M1 was $3,018 billion!

In Where Does Money Come From? (Ryan‐Collins et al. 2012), the authors argue that banks create deposits by lending rather than having to receive deposits before they can lend. However, this well‐known aspect of the bank money supply process is only part of the story. While a bank loan (an asset of the bank) is extended by crediting the borrower’s deposit account with the bank (a liability of the bank), the newly created deposit will almost immediately be withdrawn to pay for whatever it was borrowed for. Thus, the willingness of banks to lend in the first place must depend on their expectations of being able to finance their loans (from existing or new deposits, by borrowing in the interbank or money markets, or by the repayment of previous loans) at an interest rate less than the rate on their loans.

The money multiplier version of this story assumes a reserve constraint — namely, that the central bank fixes the supply of base money. The MMT version highlights the fact that monetary policy these days targets interest rates at which the central bank lends leaving the supply of base money to be determined by the market. The central bank sets a policy interest rate as the instrument by which it influences the amount of credit banks wish to supply. In order to maintain its target interest rate, the central bank lends or otherwise supplies to the market whatever amount of base money is needed to cover private bank funding needs at that rate (Davies 2004). As a result of the lags in the effects of monetary policy, the rate is set and adjusted as needed in the expectation of achieving the central bank’s inflation target one to two years in the future.

With the Federal Reserve’s introduction of interest on bank reserves, including excess reserves (those in excess of the amount required by regulation), banks’ management of their funding needs for a given policy rate now involves drawing down or increasing their excess reserves. Adherents of MMT therefore argue that “money is created ‘endogenously’ to finance spending” (Fullwiler, Kelton, and Wray 2012: 18). Like post‐Keynesians, they contend that “loans create deposits” and “repayment of loans destroys deposits” (ibid.).

The market determination of the money supply at a given central bank interest rate is, in fact, similar to the way in which the market determines the money supply under a currency board system. When a central bank is subject to currency board rules, it passively supplies whatever amount of money the market wants to buy and hold at the official (fixed) price of the currency (e.g., the fixed exchange rate or price of gold). However, as elaborated further below, unlike a price anchor and currency board rules, which have a stable equilibrium, an interest rate target does not. If, for example, the interest rate target is below the market’s equilibrium real rate, the resulting increase in bank credit and money will increase prices pushing the targeted nominal rate further and further below its real equilibrium. Thus, targeting inflation requires continuous adjustments in the intermediate interest rate target.

How Is Base Money Produced?
MMT applies the same approach to the creation of base or high‐powered money by the government as it does to the creation of bank deposits by the private sector. As Fullwiler, Kelton, and Wray (2012: 19) note:

The State must spend or lend its HPM [high‐powered money] into existence before banks, firms, or households can get hold of coins, paper notes, or bank reserves… . The issuer of the currency must supply it first before the users of the currency (banks for clearing, households and firms for purchases and tax payments) have it. That makes it clear that government cannot sit and wait for tax receipts before it can spend — no more than the issuers of bank deposits (banks) can sit and wait for deposits before they lend.

The fact that the public/taxpayers can’t have the government’s money until the central bank (which MMT consolidates with the rest of the government for analytical convenience) issues it does not mean there is a free lunch, as MMT suggests. Central banks can finance government spending by purchasing government debt either directly or from the market, but this does not give the Treasury carte blanche to spend without concern about taxes, deficit finance, or inflation.

The well‐known fact that government spending and tax collections can create and destroy money is the reason that central banks work hard to neutralize their effects on bank liquidity. In the United States, the Treasury’s Tax and Loan Accounts (TT&L) with commercial banks are not part of M1. Likewise, balances held at the Fed in the Treasury General Account (TGA) are not part of M0. Thus, ceteris paribus, whenever the government spends balances in the TGA it increases M1. Similarly, if it debits its TT&L balance with a bank and credits the recipient of its spending, M1 is increased. If it debits its balances with the Fed, both M0 and M1 are increased.

In fact, most of the day‐to‐day injections and withdrawals of liquidity in the banking system by central banks are for the purpose of neutralizing the effect on M0 of the government’s inflows and outflows of funds (so‐called defensive operations). If central banks attempted to forecast these Treasury shocks to liquidity in order to offset them, they would undertake open market operations in the indicated amounts. Given the back and forth nature of these Treasury injections and withdrawals, the Fed’s open market operations almost always take the form of repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements, both of which are of limited duration and thus self‐reversing.

However, forecasting the amounts actually needed to stabilize liquidity is very difficult. Instead, the Fed, like all other central banks with developed money markets, sets interest rate targets (policy rates around which they set lending and deposit rates) at which they will automatically supply or drain reserves. If the increase in money from a government expenditure exceeds the public’s demand (thus reducing interest rates), or the destruction of money resulting from tax payments or public purchases of government debt reduces money below the public’s demand (thus increasing interest rates) the public will repay central bank loans or borrow at its policy interest rate. Or stated differently, if money financed government spending increases money above the public’s demand, the injection of M0 will be replaced by the central bank with government debt. The money supply that results from all of this depends on the policy interest rate set by the central bank given the state of the economy. Setting or targeting the short‐term money market interest rate (the central bank’s policy rate) is thus the critical instrument of monetary policy in today’s world.

Since the great recession in 2008, the Federal Reserve has paid interest on bank deposits with the central bank including excess reserves (bank deposits with it in excess of their required reserves under Regulation D). These reserves substitute for and play the same role as bank holdings of government securities sold to them by the central bank. In some countries where the central bank holds no government securities that could be sold to the market to stabilize liquidity, they issue their own bonds.

If the central bank sets its policy rate below the market equilibrium rate, it will supply base money in quantities that exceed market demand for money and will stimulate aggregate demand. If it persists in holding short‐term interest rates below the equilibrium rate it will eventually fuel inflation, which will put upward pressure on nominal interest rates requiring ever increasing injections of base money until the value of the currency collapses (hyperinflation). If instead the central bank money’s price is fixed to a quantity of something (or better still a basket of commodities) and is issued according to currency board rules (the central bank issues or redeems any amount demanded by the market at the fixed price), arbitrage will adjust the supply so as to keep the market price and the official price approximately the same. Unlike an interest rate target, a quantity price target is stable (Coats 2011).

Does the Story Matter?
There is nothing new in the above discussion of the monetary process, but MMT wants us to believe that it reveals an unexploited opportunity for government to spend more freely and without taxation, either by borrowing in the market or directly from the central bank. According to Tymoigne and Wray (2013: 2):

One of the main contributions of Modern Money Theory (MMT) has been to explain why monetarily sovereign governments have a very flexible policy space that is unencumbered by hard financial constraints. Not only can they issue their own currency to meet commitments denominated in their own unit of account, but also any self‐imposed constraint on their budgetary operations can be by‐passed by changing rules.

As Tymoigne and Wray (2013) note, it doesn’t matter whether the debt financing takes place by selling debt to the public, which removes the money created by government spending, or sells debt (bonds) directly to the central bank, which then sells it to the public in order to remove the money created by the government spending. The money created will be reabsorbed one way or the other as a byproduct of maintaining the central bank’s policy interest rate. Either way, the public’s holdings of public debt are increased and its holdings of money unchanged. The greater scope for public spending comes, as MMT sees it, from greater scope for issuing public debt. Critical to MMT’s message is that such debt does not crowd out private investment.

MMT advocates are aware that at some point idle resources will be used up and that this process would then become inflationary, but this caveat is generally acknowledged only when MMT proponents are pressed on it. In this regard MMT is a throwback to the old Keynesianism, which implicitly assumed a world of perpetual unemployment.

When the government increases its command of the economy’s resources, those resources are no longer available elsewhere. Two questions are important in evaluating the desirability of such spending: (1) Does deficit spending increase or decrease overall output (the size of the pie)? Or (2) Does it simply reallocate resources from the private to the public sector? When the economy is operating at full employment, a reallocation, by crowding out private investment or consumption in order to finance more government spending, has only second‐order (if any) effects on the size of the pie (often negative) (Coats 2018).

Whether we take account of the future tax liabilities created by this debt in the public’s assessment of its net wealth — and, therefore, experience “Ricardo equivalence” (Barro 1974) — or not, we must ask where the public found the resources with which it bought the debt. Did it substitute Treasury bonds for corporate bonds — that is, did the government’s debt (or monetary) financing of government spending crowd out private investment thus leaving private sector wealth unchanged (or reduced, if taking account of Ricardian equivalence), or did the resources come from reduced private consumption (i.e., increased private saving)? Any impact on private consumption will depend on what government spent its money on. Whether the shift in resources from the private sector to the public sector is beneficial depends on whether the value of the government’s resulting output is greater than is the reduced private sector output that financed it. Debt/money financing of increased government spending will increase the public’s holdings of government debt, but not necessarily of financial wealth overall and certainly not of real wealth.

One way or another, government spending means that the government is commanding resources that were previously commanded by the private sector. If the government takes resources by spending newly created money in excess of increases in the public’s demand for money, prices will rise until the real stock of money falls back to what the public wants to hold. This outcome is the economic equivalent of the government defaulting on its debt, contrary to MMT’s claim that default is impossible. Moreover, this inflation tax is generally considered the worst of all taxes because it falls disproportionately on the poor. In fact, Tymoigne and Wray (2013) rarely mention or acknowledge the distinction between real and nominal values that are, or should be, so central to discussions of monetary policy. The exception to this scenario is if the resources taken by the government were idle (i.e., unemployed), which is obviously the world MMT proponents think we are in.

Once again, MMT proponents claim to have exposed greater fiscal space than is suggested by conventional analysis. They claim that government can more freely spend to fight global warming or to fund guaranteed jobs or other such projects by printing (electronic) money. However, the market mechanism they offer for preventing such money from being inflationary (the market response to an interest rate target that replaces unwanted money with government debt) implies that such spending must be paid for with tax revenue or borrowing from the public. Both, in fact all three financing options (taxation, borrowing, and printing money), shift real resources from the private sector to the public sector and only make society better off if the value of the resulting output is greater than that of the reduced private sector output. There is nothing new here.

Part 1 of 2
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2

According to three prominent MMT adherents:

Politicians need to reject the urge to ask “How are we going to pay for it?” … We must give up our obsession with trying to “pay for” everything with new revenue or spending cuts… . Once we understand that money is a legal and social tool, no longer beholden to the false scarcity of the gold standard, we can focus on what matters most: the best use of natural and human resources to meet current social needs and to sustainably increase our productive capacity to improve living standards for future generations [Kelton, Bernal, and Carlock 2018].

Indeed. But if the government increases its use “of natural and human resources” it reduces their availability to the private sector. The means by which that transfer is affected (printing money, taxing, or borrowing) is how it is paid for. If MMT is serious about an inflation constraint on money finance, it has introduced nothing new.

Tymoigne and Wray (2013: 2, 5) proclaim that a government that can borrow in its own currency

has an unlimited capacity to pay for the things it wishes to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments, and has an unlimited ability to provide funds to the other sectors. Thus, insolvency and bankruptcy of this government is not possible. It can always pay… . All these institutional and theoretical elements are summarized by saying that monetarily sovereign governments are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints.

Nevertheless, inflating away the real value of obligations (government debt) is economically a default.

If proponents of MMT eliminate inflationary finance, then MMT’s claim to have revealed greater fiscal space comes down to greater borrowing capacity than normally claimed. Ironically, most economists think that the U.S. government already has a serious debt problem even before piling on more debt as advocated by MMT (MacGuineas and Murphy 2019). The federal government’s current gross debt is $22 trillion, which is 105 percent of U.S. GDP or $181,884 per taxpayer.1 Alarmingly this year’s federal budget deficit is $984 billion at the peak of the economic business cycle when a cyclically balanced budget would require a budget surplus. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects continued increases in U.S. gross debt from existing legislation and projects that the debt‐to‐GDP ratio will increase to 108 percent by 2023 (CBO 2019a, Table 2, and 2019b, Table 3).

The reason for the MMT’s radical view seems to be the belief that the natural rate of interest is zero. This would explain Wray’s claim that “Treasury debt could be eliminated entirely if the central bank were to simply pay interest on reserves, or if the Fed were to adopt zero as its overnight interest rate target. In either case … there would be no need for sales of sovereign debt” (Wray 2003: 95).

Even with the zero real interest policy rate of the last decade, a nominal interest rate of 2 percent requires almost half a trillion dollars in interest payments from the federal government budget of 4.3 trillion dollars. The global savings glut of recent years that has lowered real equilibrium interest rates may not last forever as the population continues to age (Bernanke 2005). The large current account deficits that now finance almost half of the federal budget deficit require an attractive risk‐adjusted return on government debt, without which investment crowding out would be greater (Coats 2018). Such debt cannot grow without limit without debt service costs absorbing the government’s entire budget, and even the inflation tax has its hyperinflation limit (abandonment of a worthless currency). The U.S. debt would need to grow a lot larger before the world would lose confidence in our ability to service it (i.e., to print money that was not inflationary), but there is a limit. As doubts began to rise, so would the risk premium required in the interest rate offered on U.S. debt. Its share of the federal budget could increase rapidly as additional borrowing occurred (for increases in the debt and rolling over of existing debt). As lender confidence in U.S. debt evaporates, the plunge over the debt cliff can be rapid as we saw a few years ago in Ireland, Spain, and Greece.

Fiscal Policy as Monetary Policy
Government spending increases the money supply, and the payment of taxes reduces it. Much of a central bank’s monetary activities are undertaken to neutralize the liquidity shocks of the mismatch of the timing of government spending and receipt of revenue — so‐called defensive operations. MMT wants to use taxation to manage the money supply rather than for government financing purposes. MMT wants to shift the management of monetary policy from the central bank to the treasury. In doing so it ignores the accumulated wisdom on the difficulty and undesirability of doing so.

Some critics of MMT fault it for its explanatory simplification of consolidating the central bank and treasury on the grounds that it doesn’t reflect existing legislation giving central banks operational independence (it certainly doesn’t fit the eurozone with the ECB and 19 separate governments in the system). But this criticism misses the real point. If it were desirable to remove the existing barriers to central bank monetary financing of the government, it could be done. The relevant question is whether this way of thinking about and characterizing monetary and fiscal policy produces a more insightful and useful approach to formulating fiscal/monetary policy. Does it justify shifting the responsibly for monetary policy from the central bank to the treasury? Should taxes be levied so as to regulate the money supply rather than finance the government (though it would do that as well)?

I have only reviewed the articles cited here and they do not address the traditional arguments that have favored the use of central bank monetary policy over fiscal policy (beyond automatic stabilizers) for stabilization purposes. Would MMT replace setting an interest rate target with something else — such as a money supply target — as the basis for its monetary policy–driven choice of taxation? I assume that MMT would continue to support the basic principles of good taxation when making monetary policy adjustments to tax revenue (Coats 2013). If tax revenue is a tool for managing the money supply and inflation (rather than financing government), what principles or models would guide tax policy? How would the government manipulate the sluggish adjustments in tax revenue to smooth over the monetary shocks of government spending and revenue mismatches?

None of the challenges of the use of fiscal policy as a countercyclical tool (flexible timing, what the money is spent for, and so on) established with traditional analysis have been neutralized by the MMT vision and claim of extra fiscal space. In fact, as we will see below, despite their advocacy of fiscal over monetary policy for maintaining price stability, MMT supporters have little real interest in and no clear approach to doing so as they prefer to centrally manage wages and prices in conjunction with a guaranteed employment program.

The existing arrangements around the globe (central banks that independently execute price stability mandates and governments that determine the nature and level of government spending and its financing) are designed to protect monetary stability from the inflation bias of politicians with shorter policy horizons — the time inconsistency problem (Kydland and Prescott 1977). The universal assignments of responsibilities for monetary policy and for fiscal policy to a central bank and a treasury or finance ministry are meant to align decisionmaking with the authority responsible for the results of its decisions (price stability for monetary policy and welfare‐enhancing levels and distribution of government spending and its financing for fiscal policy). It is the sad historical experience of excessive reliance on monetary finance and the costly undermining of the value of currencies that have led to the worldwide movement to central bank independence. MMT ignores that history and its lessons.

The establishment of central bank operational independence in recent decades is rightly considered a major accomplishment. MMT advocates bring great enthusiasm for more government spending especially on their guaranteed employment and Green New Deal projects, which will need to be justified on their own merits. MMT’s way of viewing money and monetary policy adds nothing to the arguments for or against these policies. Its enthusiasm for printing money and borrowing increase already present dangers to the monetary stability so important for economic growth. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers recently denounced MMT for ignoring this inflation risk (Summers 2019).

The Bottom Line
MMT advocates reject the macro fine‐tuning of traditional Keynesian analysis. They believe that

government should be directly involved continuously over the cycle, by putting in place structural macroeconomic programs that directly manage the labor force, pricing mechanisms, and investment projects, and constantly monitoring financial developments… . But MMT goes beyond full employment policy as it also promotes capital controls for open economies, credit controls, and socialization of investment. Wage rates and interest rate management are also important [Tymoigne and Wray 2013: 44–45].

No wonder Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio‐Cortez (D‑NY) likes MMT.

For all of its fascination with how money is produced (via government spending and bank lending), the programs favored by MMT, such as government guaranteed employment, must be evaluated on their merits in the traditional way. As an aside, I see many potential problems with a government guarantee of employment and would prefer a guaranteed minimum income, which would provide a comprehensive safety net and leave job and other choices to individuals rather than to government administrators of a jobs program.

MMT attempts, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to repackage and resurrect the empirically and theoretically discredited Keynesian policies of the 1960s and 70s. A 2019 survey of leading economists showed a unanimous rejection of MMT’s assertions that (1) “Countries that borrow in their own currency should not worry about government deficits because they can always create money to finance their debt,” and (2) “Countries that borrow in their own currency can finance as much real government spending as they want by creating money” (Chicago Booth 2019). MMT is an effort to justify more government spending on programs favored by AOC and her friends with claims of fiscal space that can be liberated by printing money. Its arguments do not add up (Palley 2019).

Both the excitement and motivation for MMT seem to reflect the desire to promote a political agenda, without the hard analysis of its pros and cons — its costs and benefits.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Savanah Hernandez On Exclusive With Government Official Tasked With Moving ‘Unaccompanied Minors’ 9:31 min

Savanah Hernandez On Exclusive With Government Official Tasked With Moving ‘Unaccompanied Minors’​

Bannons War Room Published August 16, 2022

(No summary. Did not watch)
^^^^^^
(Excerpt)
Whistleblower: Biden Regime Trafficking Up To 40,000 Kids A Month, Partnering With Cartels? 4:46 min

Whistleblower: Biden Regime Trafficking Up To 40,000 Kids A Month, Partnering With Cartels?​

Red Voice Media Published August 16, 2022
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
The Pit’ Part Two - A Vital Strategy Session presented by True The Vote 8/16/22 will be live at 7 pm EDT

The Pit’ Part Two - A Vital Strategy Session presented by True The Vote 8/16/22​

Right Side Broadcasting Network Published August 16, 2022 714 Views
Livestream begins: Aug 16, 7:00 pm EDT

From the producers of ‘2000 Mules’ brings us ‘The Pit’, an informative strategy session that lays out the groundwork to save this country. Features special guests as well as info about the latest technology that's being weaponized against the American people.

^^^^^
Here is the Trevor Louden video shown at The PIT part 2 0n CCP involvement in the election

Seeding The Vote: China’s Influence In The 2020 US General Election 5:45 min

Seeding The Vote: China’s Influence In The 2020 US General Election

NOVEMBER 28, 2020

The Chinese Communist Party has been funding U.S. groups affiliated with “Seed the Vote” to influence the 2020 U.S. General Elections. Foreign interference in U.S. elections is illegal. The Chinese Communist Party needs to be held accountable. It’s past time to designate the CCP as a Transnational Criminal Organization.

Main Groups:
Liberation Road
The Communist Party USA
Left Roots
Chinese Progressive Assoc - CPA

Lead Communists
Alex Tom
Adam Gold
Michelle Foy
Sara Jarman
Max Elbaum

Seed the vote - working on mass enrolling minority voters through:
Luca (Ariz)
New Florida Majority
PA Stands Up
Asian Pacific Labor Alliance (Nev.)
Michigan Detroit Action
Wisconsin Bloc
LI Texas Organizing Project (TX Acorn)
New Georgia Project
Carolina Federation
New VA Majority

Foreign influence in our elections is illegal

Louden said BLM - Agents for Black Lives is a Communist front for the Chinese Progressive Assoc.

He also said the mass enrolling was to cover ballot stuffing. They didn't get the majority they needed and had to dump more.

McClure, who produced maps to target specific minority groups, worked in the Geography Dep. of Wuhan Univ.

Many of the organizations involved in 20000 Mules are the same groups.

Their stated objective is to create a one party Democrat Progressive South controlled by the CCP. Kamala Harris is involved. Biden has worked with Russia, China and Iran since 1972.

___________

Louden Ref the movie "Enemies Within the Church" (Pay wall) Enemies Within: The Church
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Less than 60% of the U.S. Corn Crop in Good or Excellent Condition​

The U.S. corn crop is consistently declining in condition. Currently 57% of the crop has a good or excellent rating, which ties with 2019 for the week's worst corn condition rating since 2012.
The U.S. corn crop is consistently declining in condition. Currently 57% of the crop has a good or excellent rating, which ties with 2019 for the week's worst corn condition rating since 2012.(Graphic: Farm Journal, Data: USDA)

By SARA SCHAFER August 16, 2022

The U.S. corn crop is consistently declining in condition. Currently 57% of the crop has a good or excellent rating, according to the latest Crop Progress report from USDA. Last week 58% of the crop was in good or excellent condition.

This current rating ties with 2019 for the week's worst corn condition rating since 2012.

Corn Condition Rating


The latest weekly decline in corn condition was led by 9% drop in South Dakota, a 7% drop in Iowa and a 5% drop in Missouri.

Meanwhile, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and North Carolina all saw a 4% or more increase in the good-to-excellent category.

As of mid-August, 94% of the corn crop is silking versus a 97% average; 62% of the corn crop is at the dough stage versus a 65% average; and 16% of the crop is dented versus a 20% average.

For soybeans, 58% of the crop is in good-to-excellent condition. That is a one percentage point decline from last week.

Soybean Condition Ratings

The states that saw the biggest weekly decline in soybean good or excellent condition include:
  • Louisiana: -9%
  • Nebraska: -6%
  • Iowa: -8%
  • Kansas: -5%
  • South Dakota: -5%
Arkansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee and Minnesota all saw a 4% or more increase in the good-to-excellent category.

In terms of soybean growth stage, 93% blooming of soybeans are blooming, which is average; and 74% is setting pods versus a 77% average.

As of Aug. 9, 66% of the U.S. was experiencing abnormal dryness/drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Drought conditions improved across the northern and eastern Corn Belt over the past week, while they worsened in western and southern areas.

8-9-22 Drought Monitor

Currently, drought is prevalent in southern Iowa and much of Missouri. Much of southern Minnesota is also experiencing at least some notable degree of dryness. East of the Mississippi River, dryness and drought cover less area, but small areas of D1 can be found in northern Wisconsin, east-central Michigan, and in a swath extending from east-central Illinois into west-central Tennessee.

View from the Field​

The annual Pro Farmer Crop Tour provides insights into potential corn and soybean production and gathers scout reporting from 2,000+ fields across Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota.

The 2022 event will run from Aug. 22 -25. Register to attend a nightly meeting!
“Heading into this year’s Tour, we know the corn crop is behind average in maturity after planting delays in some areas,” says Brian Grete, Pro Farmer editor. “It’s debatable how much crop condition ratings equate to final yield, but this year’s crop was just a tad below average when pollination started. A key to this year’s Tour is if we find enough bushels in the good areas to offset the poorer areas.”

Read More: 2022 Crop Tour: A View From The Field
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

John Phipps: What's the Biggest Challenge for Dairy Farmers Adopting More Robotic Milkers and Automation?​

USFR-Customer Support 8.12.22
By U.S. FARM REPORT August 16, 2022

Video on website 3:08 min

From Dan Peapenburg, a dairy consultant in Appleton, Wisconsin:
“I visit farms that have 50 cows and some up to 8,000 cows. Why is it that those dairies that have robotic equipment are really happy with the decisions they made to harness this new technology, but those that aren't as progressive, talk about everything that is wrong with robots without having any knowledge of how the robotic systems work? Furthermore, lots of these robotic resisters complain about the shortage of labor and not enough help to complete daily activities. WIth the dairy industry changing so fast, maybe some producers shouldn't be so resistant to new technologies.”

Thanks for your question. Dairy is pretty far out of my field on knowledge, so I welcome any corrections of what I’m about to say. That said, I’m pretty sure one of the biggest hurdles to robot adoption is the machines are dang expensive.

The best figure I could get was approximately $200,000 per machine, and I am guessing there are added costs to adapt a milking parlor to accommodate.

One machine can handle around 70 cows per milking, and experts calculate the ideal number of cows is around 500 to economically switch to robots.

I was told years ago by a small dairy farmer, that immigrants saved his family dairy, but that labor source is not only being sharply curtailed, but dairies have to compete with other labor-starved industries for workers, sharply raising wages. Like so many small mom-and-pop businesses, the fact they are cherished institutions of our past does not exempt them from stark financial reality. Now add in that technology can fundamentally change the culture of those businesses. Skills that took years to master efficiently are suddenly obsolete. Patterns of work and community bonds are reforged.

Right now, shutting down a dairy operation could be a more lucrative option just based on land values alone. Small producers may not be unprogressive so much as constrained by economic reality. For older dairy farmers, watching a way of life slip away can be painful enough to color your outlook on much of your life and the future.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Have You Looked into NRCS Program Funding? New Opportunities Available in the Reconciliation Package​

USDA estimates 89 million acres of cropland exceed the nitrogen loss threshold. To mitigate these losses, NRCS staff will be tasked with developing nutrient management plan.(Farm Journal)

By JENNA HOFFMAN August 16, 2022

USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was allotted $19.5 billion in new conservation funding when the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was signed by President Joe Biden on Tuesday.

The NRCS says the funds will be used to prioritize “broader efforts” that address fertilizer availability and cost issues for American producers brought on by COVID-19 and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

“USDA is responding to the needs of U.S. producers and consumers by adding program flexibilities, expanding options and assistance, and investing in nutrient management strategies to help farmers address local resource concerns and global food security while also improving their bottom line,” says Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary.

According to the press release, USDA will address these challenges through:

1. INITIATIVE GROUNDWORK

Conservation is threaded into the IRA to deliver $20 billion in assistance to four oversubscribed conservation programs:
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - $8.45 billion
• Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) - $4.95 billion
• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) - $3.25 billion
• Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) - $1.4 billion

The USDA press release says an expedited application process, including targeted outreach to historically underserved producers, will be used to rank and meet on-farm needs.

2. ECONOMIC BENEFITS

USDA estimates 89 million acres of cropland exceed the nitrogen loss threshold. To mitigate these losses, NRCS staff will be tasked with developing nutrient management plans. Producers will then use these plans to “adequately supply soils and plants with necessary nutrients” and minimize nutrient transport, according to the press release.

With new nutrient management plans in place, the agency forecasts a $30 per acre savings for producers, with a net savings of $2.6 billion.

3. TECH SERVICE PROVIDERS

Training, outreach and education in new and existing programs, and incentive payments, require manpower. NCRS says IRA funds will be funneled to Technical Service Providers (TSP) to assist producers in the program application and implementation processes.

This TSP funding might sound familiar, as the USDA tapped Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds earlier this year to cover program costs associated with TSP.

To read NRCS’s nutrient management planning information, visit their site.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

USDA Announces New Opportunities to Improve Nutrient Management​


Historic funding from Inflation Reduction Act an unprecedented investment in American agriculture

Release & Contact Info​

Press Release
Release No. 0178.22
Contact: USDA Press
Email: press@usda.gov

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15, 2022 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) welcomed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which will deliver $19.5 billion in new conservation funding to support climate-smart agriculture.

This historic funding will bolster the new steps that USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) announced today to improve opportunities for nutrient management. NRCS will target funding, increasing program flexibilities, launch a new outreach campaign to promote nutrient management’s economic benefits, in addition to expanding partnerships to develop nutrient management plans. This is part of USDA’s broader effort to address future fertilizer availability and cost challenges for U.S. producers.

"President Biden and Congress have taken an important, historic step towards easing the burden of inflation on the American public and meeting the moment on climate,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Agriculture has long been at the forefront of our fight against climate change. From climate-smart agriculture, to supporting healthy forests and conservation, to tax credits, to biofuels, infrastructure and beyond, the Inflation Reduction Act provides USDA with significant additional resources to continue to lead the charge.”

Through USDA’s conservation programs, America’s farmers and ranchers will have streamlined opportunities to improve their nutrient management planning, which provides conservation benefits while mitigating the impacts of supply chain disruptions and increased input costs.

“The pandemic and Ukraine invasion have led to supply chain disruptions, higher prices of inputs, and goods shortages in countries across the globe,” Vilsack said. “USDA is responding to the needs of U.S. producers and consumers by adding program flexibilities, expanding options and assistance, and investing in nutrient management strategies to help farmers address local resource concerns and global food security while also improving their bottom line.”

Specifically, NRCS efforts include:
  • Streamlined Nutrient Management Initiative – A streamlined initiative will incentivize nutrient management activities through key conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), EQIP Conservation Incentive Contracts, and the Conservation Stewardship Program. The initiative will use a ranking threshold for pre-approval and include a streamlined and expedited application process, targeted outreach to small-scale and historically underserved producers, and coordination with FSA to streamline the program eligibility process for producers new to USDA. In addition to otherwise available funding at the state level, NRCS is targeting additional FY23 funds for nutrient management. NRCS is also announcing a streamlined funding opportunity for up to $40 million in nutrient management grant opportunities through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP).
  • Nutrient Management Economic Benefits Outreach Campaign – A new outreach campaign will highlight the economic benefits of nutrient management planning for farmers. The potential net savings to farmers who adopt a nutrient management plan is estimated to be an average of $30 per acre for cropland. It is estimated that there are 89 million acres of cropland (28% of total U.S. cropland) currently exceeding the nitrogen loss threshold; and if all those acres implemented a nutrient management plan, the average net savings would be $2.6 billion. NRCS staff develop nutrient management plans to help producers use nutrient resources effectively and efficiently to adequately supply soils and plants with necessary nutrients while minimizing transport of nutrients to ground and surface waters. Producer information is available at farmers.gov/global-food-security.
  • Expanded Nutrient Management Support through Technical Service Providers Streamlining and Pilots – New agreements with key partners who have existing capacity to support nutrient management planning and technical assistance will expand benefits and serve as a model to continue streamlining the certification process for Technical Service Providers (TSPs). NRCS is also developing new opportunities to support partner training frameworks, nutrient management outreach and education, and new incentive payments through TSP partners for nutrient management planning and implementation.
Alongside the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and American Rescue Plan, the Inflation Reduction Act provides once-in-a-generation investment in rural communities and their infrastructure needs, while also responding to the climate crisis. The bill invests $40 billion into existing USDA programs promoting climate smart agriculture, rural energy efficiency and reliability, forest conservation, and more. Approximately $20 billion of this investment will support conservation programs that are oversubscribed, meaning that more producers will have access to conservation assistance that will support healthier land and water, improve the resilience of their operations, support their bottom line, and combat climate change. This includes:
  • $8.45 billion for EQIP
  • $4.95 billion for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
  • $3.25 billion for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
  • $1.4 billion for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
For more information and resources for nutrient management planning, visit farmers.gov/global-food-insecurity. Contact NRCS at your local USDA Service Center to get assistance with a nutrient management plan for your land.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.
#
 
Top