Thoughts on Social Unrest

In America, hopelessness reigns supreme.

Over the past few years, this sad reality is evidenced by the explosion of social movements.  The rise of Black Lives Matter, the taking a knee to the National Anthem, reemergence of neo-Nazis and, most recently, the “safe space” movements on college campuses which embrace violence to protest conservative speakers.

All of these are symptomatic of an underlying frustration born of a lack of hope. This lack has manifested in race riots in Charlottesville and Baltimore as well as the more radicalized politics of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. At first, both of those candidates were considered so far removed from main stream politics that their supporters were the brunt of jokes and mockery. Yet here we are with Donald Trump as President and Bernie Sanders still supported by a loyal following.

While at first glance these protests seem to be about race, immigration or opposition to Donald Trump, I think they are really about hopelessness fueled by the dire state of our economy.

The U.S. economy has been growing steadily the last eight years. First, slowly under Obama, and now having taken off under Trump. The stock market is booming and job growth has begun. Yet, median incomes remain $60,000 and the average college debt is more than $30,000. The average cost of a house is upwards of $200,000. Even a decent apartment is beyond the financial reach of many.

Realizing that most Americans need more money in their pockets, the Trump Administration passed the new tax law which should help many Americans. Yet it sparked outrage among the Left. I think their reaction to the tax plan is based upon fear. With so many people living on the government dole, there is a general concern that since taxpayers will now be paying less taxes, less money will be going to fund these government dependency programs and that is the heart of the Left’s base. However, we are twenty trillion dollars in debt, with no solution in sight as private and public debt soar, so its beyond perplexing that the Left is worried about a new tax law rather than the massive amount of debt that hangs over all of our heads.

Not only is there little outrage over this massive debt, but there is virtually no outrage over the fact that Social Security is run as a Ponzi scheme. Everyone knows this. There are no segregated accounts and younger people pay for elderly peoples’ retirements. This farce could only be maintained in the public sector. Try to run a Ponzi scheme in the private sector, the way the government has run Social Security, and you’d likely wind up in prison.

Oh, right. Charles Ponzi did.

While the U.S. economy as a whole is not run as a Ponzi scheme, there have been many other schemes run on an unassuming and unaware public in order to keep the economy chugging along. These schemes have created massive advantages to the players who knew when, and how, the levers of profitability were being pulled. For example, the main beneficiaries of our economy have been people who had access to capital. Most recently, the wealthy have been able to benefit from the rise in the housing, stock markets and hard assets like gold. Those who cannot afford to play on the fields of banking, borrowing and investment, salaried employees who live on fixed wages, have (to the contrary) seen their purchasing power eroded at the same time those select few have been amassing fortunes.

The irony is that we are a nation with amazing economic numbers to be envied; yet, only a few have benefited from the boom.

It’s hard to wrap your brain around the reality that as asset prices soar so many are struggling and getting poorer. Even the mainstream media has a hard time understanding this paradox and, consequently, seems unable to accurately report it. So much so that when they cover the protests they report on the event (such as a Blacks Lives Matter march) as if in an intellectual vacuum while failing to report of the frustration that fuels the event.

Many years ago, I took a course on counter-terrorism presented by a British Royal Marine instructor who talked about how the British kept Northern Ireland in check. During one of the discussions, a senior U.S. Marine Officer made an observation about how U.S. Inner cities had become like war zones (think: downtown Detroit and parts of Baltimore). He  remarked on the steps our government took to make these places safer. One of things he cited was the role of the U.S. Post Office. It was, essentially, a jobs program for the underclass. The Post Office provided middle income jobs for people who really had no other economic alternatives. Those jobs acted as a stabilizing effect in the troubled cities.

The Officer’s comment bothered me. It was the first time I had grasped this notion: the U.S. government actually implemented jobs’ programs to pay off its citizens. What this Officer was really saying was that there would always be two economies: one for the poor and disenfranchised (who needed to be “paid off”) and one for everyone else.

Now twenty years later, as I reflect on his comments, the unrest and riots are getting worse.

I have often lived on the fringes of urban housing and substandard areas. As a result, I am intimately familiar with the frustration and rage that exists in those neighborhoods. Imagine how you would feel if you could look across the street and see your neighbors living the life of luxury while you knew your economic situation would never change. Many thought urban housing would provide a respite for families living in areas where typical housing was beyond their financial reality. However, all the project and subsidized housing did was assure that those who moved in stayed, or were stuck there, for generations. Like Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, government largess creates more poverty.

What the U.S. economy really needs is a reality check and a return to normalcy. There are really only a few ways to do that and one is more likely that all the others. With twenty trillion dollars in debt resting on the backs of those least able to afford it, massive default is the probable outcome.

If you don’t think that causes hopelessness you’re just not paying attention.

Steve

sleeclark@gmail.com

Cut Out The Middleman If You Dare

We are living during an economic revolution wherein the “middleman” is being eliminated. In most cases this is good news. If you need a cab you now call Uber where both the driver and the passenger benefit. Cab companies no longer have a monopoly on who can drive and, most importantly, who can obtain a license (medallion) to do so. Uber opened the industry to millions of people who wanted to drive a cab and earn some money on the side but for whom obtaining a license was cost prohibitive and oftentimes a political impossibility.

Airbnb is another example of a company that has so benefited. Historically, if you needed a place to stay in a town you were unfamiliar with you had to go through a hotel booking site. No longer. Airbnb opened that market by allowing homeowners to rent out rooms and, in many cases, their whole house.

There are many other such examples but its not always the case.

Within the field of institutional finance it has been a disaster. Investment banks use to act as the middleman when it came to clearing transactions; but, with the advent of Dodd-Frank and the elimination of investment banks, there are no middlemen to clear trades. Nowhere is this more disastrous than in the bond market.

In life, the things we know are dwarfed by the things we don’t.  The bond market is boring to most people as they feel it has little consequence in their lives. In fact, the bond market greatly affects all of our lives. In 2008, it was the collapse of bond market that almost precipitated the entire destruction of our financial system. Therefore, its safe to say the bond market is something we should definitely try to understand.

Let’s do a basic primer.

The bond market is really the main determinate of what sets the rate for money.  Any time you need to buy a car, a house or apply for a credit card, the rate that applies is determined by current bond market rates. Thus the speed, quality and efficiency of the bond market affects all consumers in a variety of economic activities.

Prior to the bond market collapse of 2007-2008, investment banks would act as an intermediary for all bond transactions. When the market was selling off, bond traders at investment banks would come in and buy the bonds and act as a stabilizing effect on the markets. They did so because the market would reward them for assuming this risk.

However, after the collapse of 2008, investment banks ceased to exist, They were transformed into commercial banks. Under regulatory oversight and applicable law, commercial banks can’t use depositors’ monies for speculative purposes. In addition, the banks were further prohibited from taking speculative positions and could only transact when they had an available buyer and available seller on the other side.

Since these changes have been implemented, very little secondary trading takes place. Mutual funds and pension funds now know that when they buy a bond there is a good chance they will have to hold that instrument until maturity. They know it will be very hard to sell their bond holdings. These investment funds have very little turnover in their portfolios and are assuming greater and greater risk as a result.

Currently, with low volatility and low yields, nobody seems to be worried too much about this problem; but, crisis always hits the financial markets and what’s ahead will be no different. Although there has not been a financial crisis since 2008,  during the previous ten years there were four major shocks to the system: dot com bust in 2000; the Russian crisis in 1998; Long Term Capital bust in 1998, and the Asian crisis in 1997. The fact is: booms and busts are part of, and natural to, the credit cycle.

We have already seen a glimpse of what is to come with the collapse of the Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund in 2015. Given the problems the fund endured, it had to unwind. However, it took over two years to get the investors their money back. Why? Because the investors were trapped. There were no ready and willing buyers to buy those distressed assets. The fund was not huge. It had about five billion in assets. Imagine the problems that will come when a much larger funds needs to be liquidated. Now think about those investors who could not get their money out and had to raise liquidity to meet their own obligations in other ways.

What happens when you cut out the middleman out of the bond market is that panic ensues.

Here in the U.S., we have been quick to embrace many of the new technologies that eliminated the need for a middleman. But let’s be clear. Investment banks did very well for years clearing bond trades. Now that mechanism no longer exists. We are entering uncharted territory and this lack of a middleman should worry us all. What happens when a large pension fund is forced to sell off some of its assets and isn’t able to meet its redemption needs?  Are we going to tell the retirees to wait two years for their liquidity?

The technocrats point to Uber and Airbnb as companies that have benefited us all by cutting out the middleman. But, uh oh!, very few if any of these companies are making any money. The bet on these companies is that one day they will make money. Even titans like Amazon, Netflix and Tesla have struggled to make money because they have had to spend a fortune on growth. Such companies could only exist in an environment like the current one… where the financial markets are so distorted they can borrow unlimited amounts of money to fuel their growth.

Before the markets become rational again, and they will, there will be blood on the streets. Then, once again, markets will reward companies that make money and punish those that don’t. This is the way it has always been during rational times. We will again see the value of companies based upon the merits of their ideas and the profits those ideas generate. We will even see the error of government regulators in taking away the role of investment banks to naturally provide liquidity in the financial markets. Until then, buckle up.

Steve

sleeclark@gmail.com

How To Profit

Last week saw the final step in closing a deal that would have made me a decent amount of money in the short run and, potentially, a great deal of money in the long run. I could have ignored my principles and my gut thereby finalizing the details of the deal. Or, I could have stood on principal, followed my gut and likely caused the deal to crash and burn. I stood my ground.  It crashed and burned. I feel really good. If making money is the measure of success, I failed. But if the measure is what was ethical, legal and honest then I scored big. This deserves an explanation.

I had been in negotiations with the creator of an app.  He was trying to raise seed money; first round investors. Even if you’ve got a great product or service, which this guy seems to have, that first round of fundraising is always a challenge. After all, you’re doing it with no profits or sales to back up your claim of value. And of course, the developer always thinks the value of his product is worth gazillions and the investors always think it’s not. There was a target amount to be raised by a date certain and I was trying to reach that target by that date. One week prior to the deadline I had succeeded in securing an investor willing to put up 50% of the target. Further, I had contacted an additional investor who had an interest and, if terms were agreeable, was willing to put up twice the target amount in addition to the 50% I had already secured.

Terms. The magic word.

You see, from the first presentation that I attended as a potential fundraiser, the terms for potential investors were vague and changeable. In fact, whenever the developer was asked the terms, he repeatedly said, “everything’s negotiable.” Trouble was, what he said and what he did were inconsistent. When it came to terms he was inflexible and demanding. In fact, he was dictatorial in his delivery. Further, he refused to put anything in writing.

I am a lawyer. Terms in writing, even offers to contract that are yet subject to negotiation, need to be in writing. This is not a quirk of mine. This is standard legal and business practice. Further, this developer was refusing to put in writing even the terms that pertained to me as a broker.

I grew up watching my father, a successful entrepreneur, make many a deal on a handshake or someone’s word. I am “of that school” even though I am also a trained attorney. So, in this particular instance, sharing some common cultural background with the developer and wanting to believe the best of him, I was proceeding as if on a handshake.

But things started to not feel good in that “gut” I spoke of earlier. I call it intuition but it’s the same thing. It’s an internal instinct and “caution” light that goes on which says, “Pay attention. Something is out of alignment and doesn’t feel good.” It was the developer’s continuing refusal to commit to writing along with his increasing disrespect towards me and my investor’s rights the more certain he was that the investor was on board and the closer we got to closing the deal.

Three days before the target deadline, the developer sent me an email with terms. They were not the terms repeatedly discussed and those which were there were woefully inadequate and poorly defined. The email closed with a “take it or leave it” directive and a demand that I not respond with any counter-offer or other terms. I was to reply simply “Yes” or “No.”

Well, there’s the kiss of death to a lawyer. Under the best of circumstances I am unlikely to not have something to add! And these were definitely not the best of circumstances. So I replied with a detailed explanation of terms as my investor believed them to be based upon representations made to him (and me). Further, I set forth in detail why those terms were in everyone’s financial interest.

I received no direct reply. However, three days later, on the target date deadline, I received a call from a third party involved in the fundraising who informed me that the developer’s “team” had advised him to accept the terms as I had forwarded them. However, I was also told he was in another city that day trying to raise other money.

Well, we were at a deadline set up by the developer, not me. He had not replied to my email of three days prior. My investor was calling me to ask why there was no contract to sign as this was the target date. So, I sent an email and text to the developer at 5PM stating that if I did not have confirmation in writing by 6PM of an agreement to terms and proof of the remaining 50% of funds raised as per the budget that my investor’s offer would have to be renegotiated once the 6PM deadline passed. At 6:35PM I received a scathing email from the developer who suggested that his lawyer contact a third party in the fundraising and attempt to negotiate the close of the deal. The last sentence of the email was , “But I am completely okay with us not doing business.”

We did not do business.

I could have let the refusal to commit to writing go; I could have ignored the ever changing terms; I could have disregarded the firm deadline; I could have overlooked the increasing disrespect; I could have seen grey everywhere instead of seeing black and white. After all, a lot of money was potentially in my future. A lot! As in similar to owning early shares of Apple or Uber.

But I think letting all that go is one of the primary ways this country got itself into the economic mess it’s in. Without principles we are lost. Without principles, it’s impossible to know when to leave the room…or the deal. Without principles money isn’t our means of transaction, it’s our god.

The terms should have been set forth, committed to writing and respectfully negotiated back and forth until the point of mutual agreement. The deadline, set by the developer, should have been able to be counted on and honored by all sides. The manner in which communication was exchanged should have been respectful and not demeaning.

I feel sorry for people who do not know the core principles that form the basis for their existence. These are my principles. So when they were not met, it was easy to know when to leave the room and the deal. I do not have the money that was a part of that opportunity but I have my self-respect and I have not added to the decline of values and principles that so many in our nation bemoan the loss of. I am not part of the problem I am part of the solution. It’s a different kind of profit that I made on the deal…but profit none-the-less.

Carole (contact@carolegold.com)

A Fidget Spinner Without a Plan

If you are a parent you certainly know what a fidget spinner is. They are everywhere. A year ago no one had even heard of them. Yet, walk into any gas station and you’ll find them displayed right out in front. What happened? People started buying and companies started supplying without any guidance or plan. Money was to be made! This is the beauty of the free market. It perceives what people want and then others move in to supply that demand.

So why, in any problem related to the public good, do politicians and the media clamor for “a plan?”  Why do they go endlessly in search of a plan that will fix infrastructure, public education, healthcare or whatever needs correction? Why does there always have to be a plan? Why don’t we deal with issues the same way the market dealt with fidget spinners?

Healthcare has been contentious for years. Admittedly, a certain segment of the population was uninsured or un-insurable (albeit it a small one proportionally speaking ). So, the politicians decided to come out with a plan to fix it. The Affordable Care Act (so misnamed!!!…also dubbed “Obamacare”) was forced upon us all so that every person in the U.S. could get insurance. So how come even with a law and a plan, there are still millions without insurance?

One of the key parts of the Obamacare plan was to insure people who had pre-existing conditions. Previously, one of the biggest criticisms about insurance is that if you had cancer no insurance company would cover you. The often unpalatable reality is that this is exactly how insurance works. Insurance is defined as “A practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.” If you already have the loss (i.e. cancer) it is not an insurable item. This is no different than someone getting into a car accident then attempting to buy auto collision insurance after the fact then demanding damages and/or loss payment from the insurer!

The sales pitch was that with the Obamacare plan, even those with a pre-existing conditions would be covered. However, this is not insurance. Its a subsidy. Someone else must provide the funds to pay for a subsidy which is, essentially, a give-away. Those burdened with that obligation, it turns out, are people who get sick the least and have the least amount of money…the young.

(Lest anyone think I am hard-hearted, such an approach can include provisions for that relatively small number of persons truly destitute or who have pre-existing conditions.  Its simply a scare tactic and red herring to say that if you are opposed to government run healthcare you want to see the poor, sick and elderly die. In fact, if you’re opposed to greedy, lying politicians making personal life decisions for you and others, you’re probably more rational, informed and compassionate than not).

The young, to whom I refer,  are finally beginning to understand their economic predicament as it relates to Obamacare. The  have begun to revolt. Yet, last week,  Congress n its infinite wisdom, refused to repeal Obamacare. Naturally, Obama along with many other Democrats, was elated. Most of the media critiques went like this: “The Republicans hate Obamacare but they have no plan of their own.”

The success of Obamacare rests on the young but they don’t like paying for things they don’t use. Look at the cable business which relies on bundled services. Cable subscriptions are in serious decline because the younger generation hates paying for one hundred channels when they only watch six. They don’t understand why they are paying to watch M.T.V and the History Channel, for example, when they only watch H.B.O. They get it. They only wanto pay for things they use. Well,  Obamacare, like cable TV,  is premised on the notion of bundled services. If they are already unwilling to pay $30.00 a month for HGTV, what makes the proponents of Obamacare think they will pay for healthcare services for people they do not know and services from which they receive no benefit?

The members of the mainstream media are also big proponents of getting the government involved to fix the issue and selling the plan to the public.

Sixty Minutes entire show format revolves around investigating  problems that society can’t solve and then asking why nothing has been done to fix them.  John Stossel, the libertarian pundit on Fox started off as a Left-leaning journalist reporting on the evils of big business just as Sixty Minutes still does. He would do reports on how these entities had failed the public at large and needed to be reined in. Plans and government regulations needed to be expanded to fix whatever the issue was. But as time went on, Stossel realized that he was the one causing the most damage. He came to the conclusion that over time free markets correct and provide the needed product or service at the best price. No amount of reporting he did ever solved the problem.

Perhaps the real fault in government plans is that those elected to Congress who devise them have rarely ever run a business or successfully worked in the private sector. They are novices, at best, and ill-equipped to deal with the realities and practicalities of what it takes to supply goods and services.  The premise that government needs to supply “plans” to fix the problem is a false premise that always results in loss of individual rights and freedoms.

In the real world, individuals faced with a problem in their lives needing a solution tends to figure it out for themselves. No group meetings, no theory, no pilfering of someone else’s financial resources to solve their problem.

Markets aren’t perfect. But history verifies that nothing distributes scarce resources more fairly and efficiently than free markets. We already have government run healthcare at the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals and it has failed miserably. Let’s put patients in tandem with their treating physicians in control of healthcare and let freedom work.

 

Steve

sleeclark@gmail.com

 

Obama’s Redistribution Of Wealth

Want to know how Wall Street and the select few got rich and keep getting richer? Well, in a new book out this coming week titled The Chickenshit Club by veteran financial reporter Jesse Eisinger (highlighted by the Huffington Post…hardly a bastion of conservative news) Eisinger details the cowardice and/or sheer incompetence of the Obama Justice Department to go after the real abuses by corporate America following the 2008 meltdown. Its the ultimate redistribution of wealth…Obama style. Read the full article here:

 

Amazon on Steroids

If Amazon was a country, the U.S would place trade restrictions on it for illegal dumping. Illegal dumping in trade occurs “when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price either below the price charged in its home market or below its cost of production.”

We permit Amazon to do what other countries are denied the right to do: dump their products into the U.S. Why? Because it would kill many of our industries. Often times, foreign companies receive massive assistance from their governments. One example, Airbus in Europe is subsidized by government funds which helps it stay competitive with Boeing. If we allowed these private/state owned companies to operate freely here in the U.S, domestic companies would not be able to compete.

Amazon is not owned by the government; however, due to the nature of capital markets, it has massive advantages over its competitors. The genesis of this advantage stems from the banking  crisis in 2008.

During 2008, many banks were shut down and/or merged. As part of the bailout and mergers, terms set by the Federal government barred banks from continuing to carry risky assets on their balance sheets. Then, the Federal Reserve infused the banks with billions of dollar in bailout money. The regulations put in place restricting trading by banks while loading them with money, caused the banks to begin buying and investing in things that were “government approved.” The banks bought billions of dollars in government bonds and other “approved investments” that would not raise the ire of the federal regulators.

What happened as a result?

Many legitimate small businesses and startups were frozen out. Why lend one million dollars to a startup if the regulators were going to complain? So the banks stopped lending to smaller firms and only invested in “sure things.” Asset managers and fund managers figured out the game and started mimicking what the banks were buying, thus only buying the safest and surest of investments.

Enter Amazon.

Recognizing that it had the opportunity to raise billions of dollars, Jeff Bezos went on a buying spree…buying out Amazon’s competitors and making massive investment in its infrastructure. It wasn’t that Amazon was making a ton of money. It wasn’t. What it had was access to the capital markets, something its competitors did not have.

Infused with cash, Amazon kept on tightening its profit margins lower and lower which was effective in driving its competitors out of business. Amazon is literally killing the retail industry and the malls that support those retailers. Malls across America are dying and some analysts have estimated that 50% of all malls will be closed within ten years.

Here’s the point. Many of these retailers are small business owners and have no access to the capital markets and, therefore, must make a profit.  In contrast Amazon, which has access to billions of dollars of capital, is not pressured to make any money and so lowers its margins to the point where it freezes out its competitors.  As stated earlier, the U.S. would never allow a country to operate so brazenly knowing the goal to be crushing domestic competition in order to make more money and monopolize the industry. But the rules appear to be different for Bezos and Amazon.

Larry Kudlow once said “profits are the mothers milk of all business” yet we obviously live in a time where the rules no longer apply. At some point this anomaly that allows Amazon to operate on minuscule margins with access to unlimited capital will end. The market will turn rational at some point and demand a return on the billions that was invested into Amazon. However, by that point, all serious competitors to Amazon will have been wiped out and it will be free to charge you whatever it wants.

I am a capitalist and a libertarian at heart; but what Amazon is doing is mercenary and illegal…or needs to be. Amazon is skirting the laws barring monopolies and participating in the perversion of our current capital markets, which have not been fixed since the 2008 crisis.  Amazon should be reigned in and broken up before its too late. We are literally letting one company destroy the fabric of our economy by rapidly destroying the retail industry in order to assure its own survival.

Many Amazon supporters claim that Walmart was guilty of many of the same things that Amazon is doing. I disagree. Sam Walton started with one store, limited access to capital and built has empire one store at a time. His success was based on profits and reinvesting those profits back into his company to buy more stores.

What Walton did was something available and accessible to all Americans. He had no special advantage or received no special treatment. Amazon currently has an advantage shared by only a handful of companies: unlimited access to capital. With this advantage, those few are literally laying waste to the American retailer and, to a greater extent, the personal liberty and equality of access inherent in free market choices.

Steve

sleeclark@gmail.com

 

 

An Amazon On The Loose

Where are Jeff Bezos and Amazon heading and why should it matter to you? Well, as if this quote from Bezos isn’t revealing and disturbing enough, read this entire article. Being silent in the face of infringement upon personal freedom is acquiescence and results in voluntary enslavement.

“Our goal with Amazon Prime, make no mistake, is to make sure that if you are not a Prime member you are being irresponsible.”  Jeff Bezos

READ HERE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/americas-amazon-problem_us_59443b5be4b06bb7d2731cba?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004   

Amazon Branches Out (or further into our lives)

The first step in being scanned as you leave the grocery store. Amazon has the capability to allow you shop and as you leave the store its technology will scan everything in your cart and charge your card on file. No line. No cashiers.

Some amazing changes are ahead of us for good or ill, and only time will tell how we continue to apply and permit the technology to improve or control our lives. It will really be up to us as to where we allow it to go. Read here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-16/amazon-buy-whole-foods

What Has President Trump Done Now?

President Trump just announced his decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. He set out, with specificity, the reasons why. The economic disadvantages it imposes upon the United States, the intentional redistribution of wealth from U.S. taxpayers to other signatories who have fewer obligations yet greater freedoms to pollute, the imposition upon U.S. autonomy in making its own energy decisions, and its infringement upon the freedoms given us by our Constitution.

I thought the speech was great. To paraphrase Michele Obama, “Today was not the first, but it was certainly one of the days I am proud of my country.”

But, I have a dear friend who is as distraught as I am happy. She believes that the decision to withdraw is grave error because it’s all about “protecting planet earth.” On this she and I are in agreement. It is important to protect the planet. Where we diverge is that the Paris Climate Accord is the way to do that.  My friend voiced two strong opinions. I’d like to address them both.

First, that since we already committed or “gave our word” it’s important that we keep it.  As lifelong friends, she knows how important I think integrity is so keeping one’s word is high on my list…just not at the expense of one’s life. And certainly not when the word was given by those who will only experience the benefits…not given by those who will suffer the consequences of being bound to it.

The Paris Accord disproportionately binds the U.S. economically. It restricts our autonomy and harms our workers. Those elitists and politicians who negotiated it will be on the receiving end of its profitability and inside deals on carbon credits. Those who had no say, the average working American, will bear the financial burden and become the beasts of burden by being forced into less available and lower paying jobs as a result of more jobs going overseas.

So, if you commit me to something about which I had no say, and that to which you commit me is antagonistic to my well being, don’t expect a friend of mine who shows up and who has the ability to undo what you bound me to… not to do so. That’s what President Trump did. He undid what former President Obama did and what Obama did was not in the best interest of this nation. However, and more importantly, it was not in the best interest of the planet. This is what I would have my friend understand.

One more behemoth bureaucracy will solve nothing. That is what the Paris Accord is in its present condition. It is the latest iteration, this time global, in concentrating too much power in the hands of too few in order to enslave the many.

If you spend billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars to allegedly reduce the temperature of the planet by a fraction of one degree over the next 25 years…but allow one polluting member (China) to burn enough dirty coal in 5 years to negate the benefit…well…who gets happy from that deal?… other than the Al Gores of the world who can afford to create and trade on a carbon credit exchange.

Saving the planet is no different than any other moral issue. You cannot legislate morality and you cannot pass binding agreements that demand we become the stewards of the earth that the Book of Genesis demands us to be.

Whether its moral acts toward one another or toward the planet, they will only come through an awakening of our consciousness and a change of our hearts. Such things happen “one consciousness and one heart” at a time. When enough of them have been so awakened and so changed that we reach a tipping point in our collective consciousness…well…that’s when we will save each other and the planet. Not because Angela Merkel, Barack Obama or any other elitist with a political agenda contractually binds us to.

As I listened to President Trump today tell the nation the realities of the really bad deal we committed to, I kept thinking of that line from “A Few Good Men” when Nicholson says, “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.” Today, if you took the time to listen, President Trump told you the truth about the Paris Climate Accord. You say you want the truth? If you’re angry, it’s because you can’t handle the truth.

A Hedge Fund Manager Ahead of the Curve?

It takes a lot of courage to face the truth. Often, its easier to just go along to get along. But this Australian hedge fund manages seems unwilling to go off the impending cliff with the other lemmings. So maybe what he’s chosen to do is worth contemplating.

 

“We think that there is too much risk in this market at the moment, we think it’s crazy,” Altair CIO Philip Parker said: “valuations are stretched, property is massively overstretched… Let me tell you I’ve never been more certain of anything in my life.

Read the full article here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-29/market-crazy-hedge-fund-returns-hundreds-millions-clients-citing-imminent-calamity

Carole