Monthly Archives: March 2018

Wall Street Journal Admits “China Started The Trade War, Not Trump”, by Tyler Durden

America has been justifiably frustrated by China’s one-way trade policies and complete disregard for intellectual property rights for many years. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

If there’s a trade war between the U.S. and China, don’t blame Donald Trump, says The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip: China started it long before he became president.

While definitely not toeing the line of the mainstream media’s ubiquitous ‘Trump is an idiot’ narrative, Ip explains below that, if they’re honest with themselves, even free traders and internationalists agree China’s predatory trade practices – which include forcing U.S. business to transfer valuable technology to Chinese firms and restricting access to Chinese markets – are undermining both its partners and the trading system.

Mr. Trump’s China crackdown is risky, but it’s on firmer legal, political and economic ground than many of his other trade complaints, for several reasons.

1. These products are different: The classic case for free trade predicts that each country specializes where it has a comparative advantage, lowering costs and raising incomes for everyone. If China subsidizes exports of steel to the U.S., in theory the U.S. still benefits because consumers and steel-using industries will have lower costs, and while some steel jobs will disappear, more productive jobs elsewhere will take their place.

But starting in the 1980s, economists recognized that comparative advantage couldn’t explain success in many industries such as commercial jetliners, microprocessors and software. These industries are difficult for competitors to enter because of steep costs for research and development, previously established technical standards, increasing returns to scale (costs drop the more you sell), and network effects (the more customers use the product, the more valuable it becomes).

In such industries, a handful of firms may reap the lion’s share of the wages and profits (what economists call rents), at the expense of others. China’s efforts are aimed at achieving such dominance in many of these industries by 2025.

“China is undermining or taking away some of our rents, so we are relatively worse off and they are better off,” says Douglas Irwin, author of “Clashing over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy.” Unlike Mr. Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, “a lot of economists would hold their fire in terms of attacking Trump for his China actions. I don’t think anyone can really defend the way China has moved in the past few years, violating intellectual property and forced technology transfer.”

To continue reading: Wall Street Journal Admits “China Started The Trade War, Not Trump”

The New Military-Industrial Complex of Big Data Psy-Ops, by Tamsin Shaw

There’s all sorts of obscure companies out there gathering, analyzing, massaging,  and manipulating data…and manipulating people. From Tamshin Shaw at nybooks.com:

Bryan Bedder/Getty Images

Alexander Nix, CEO of Cambridge Analytica, addressing the Concordia Summit in New York, September 19, 2016

Apparently, the age of the old-fashioned spook is in decline. What is emerging instead is an obscure world of mysterious boutique companies specializing in data analysis and online influence that contract with government agencies. As they say about hedge funds, if the general public has heard their names that’s probably not a good sign. But there is now one data analysis company that anyone who pays attention to the US and UK press has heard of: Cambridge Analytica. Representatives have boasted that their list of past and current clients includes the British Ministry of Defense, the US Department of Defense, the US Department of State, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and NATO. Nevertheless, they became recognized for just one influence campaign: the one that helped Donald Trump get elected president of the United States. The kind of help the company offered has since been the subject of much unwelcome legal and journalistic scrutiny.

Carole Cadwalladr’s recent exposé of the inner workings of Cambridge Analytica shows that the company, along with its partner, SCL Group, should rightly be as a cautionary tale about the part private companies play in developing and deploying government-funded behavioral technologies. Her source, former employee Christopher Wylie, has described the development of influence techniques for psychological warfare by SCL Defense, the refinement of similar techniques by SCL Elections through its use across the developing world (for example, a “rumor campaign” deployed to spread fear during the 2007 election in Nigeria), and the purchase of this cyber-arsenal by Robert Mercer, the American billionaire who funded Cambridge Analytica, and who, with the help of Wylie, Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon, and the company’s chief executive Alexander Nix, deployed it on the American electorate in 2016.

But the revelations should also prompt us to ask deeper questions about the kind of behavioral science research that enables both governments and private companies to assume these powers. Two young psychologists are central to the Cambridge Analytica story. One is Michal Kosinski, who devised an app with a Cambridge University colleague, David Stillwell, that measures personality traits by analyzing Facebook “likes.” It was then used in collaboration with the World Well-Being Project, a group at the University of Pennsylvania’s Positive Psychology Center that specializes in the use of big data to measure health and happiness in order to improve well-being. The other is Aleksandr Kogan, who also works in the field of positive psychology and has written papers on happiness, kindness, and love (according to his résumé, an early paper was called “Down the Rabbit Hole: A Unified Theory of Love”). He ran the Prosociality and Well-being Laboratory, under the auspices of Cambridge University’s Well-Being Institute.

To continue reading: The New Military-Industrial Complex of Big Data Psy-Ops

Has It Been Years Since You Read A Novel You Cherish?



Has It Been Years Since You Read A Novel You Cherish?

Remember the first time you read a favorite novel? Taking it to bed for a chapter…and staying up all night! Wishing it would never end…but knowing before it did that you’d read it again and again. It became yours, a part of you. Wouldn’t you love to find another novel like that?

A great novel journeys to new lands, distant times, and unforgettable characters. The story grabs you on page one and never lets go, ever

An Age of Giants

Almost every good, service, and technology you enjoy today had its roots in the Industrial Revolution. Long-haul railroads, telephones, electric lights, automobiles, airplanes, oil refining and mass production: a trove of exciting innovations…abundance and wealth the likes of which the world had never seen!

The era produced spellbinding stories, giant epics of larger-than-life men and women. You’ll have a front row seat! The Golden Pinnacle‘s Daniel Durand fights impossible odds and dangerous enemies on his journey from orphaned rags to Wall Street riches.

Endless Battles

Fresh from Civil War battles, Daniel must battle to win beautiful Eleanor’s hand. Her powerful father opposes both his marriage and business. In New York, the city that put the Gilded in the Gilded Age, Daniel builds a Wall Street empire. He finances industrial titans J.D. Rockefeller and J.J. Hill, and clashes with Theodore Roosevelt and J.P. Morgan.

A fascinating and engaging tale that weaves historical figures and events seamlessly into the life of Daniel Durand, an orphan and self-made man who throughout his life shows the strength of character and initiative to meet challenges head on with honesty and integrity.
bassplayer, Amazon reviewer

The Durand Family

Love compelling family sagas? Settle in with The Golden Pinnacle. One of Daniel’s most dangerous enemies is his own son! A ruthless dynasty uses him to uncover a secret that could send Daniel to the gallows. Eleanor’s steadfast belief in her son is his only chance of redemption…if it doesn’t destroy her marriage.

It will make you cheer, cringe and cry for characters you won’t soon forget.
Marshall Ellis, Amazon reviewer

Are You Tired of…

The same plots over and over again?
Stories that glorify human failings and depravity?
Authors who write by formula?
Boring, people-next-door characters?
Novels of no substance: intellectual bubblegum?

What Readers Say

Take it from regular readers, who thought so highly of The Golden Pinnacle they enthusiastically posted on Amazon.

I just finished the final chapter, and found myself moved to tears. This is a MUST READ for all who wonder what happened to the unflinching American spirit….
Let it inspire you as it did me.
VWPuck67

I could hardly put this book down much like when I read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It draws you in, making you believe it was real and it may have been real. Completely enjoyed!
Ed Weaver

I recommend it to anyone who enjoys historical novels. Not many are written for this time period, which made it doubly enjoyable.
Joanne M. Robbins

I have recommended this to many friends and all have thanked me.
Edmund Hasenjager

If I could give this book a 1000 star rating, I would. This is one of those books that clearly gets inside your mind and your soul…I found myself reading this book as slowly as I could just so it would last a bit longer. Can’t say I have ever done that before. My advice: when you decide to read this masterful piece of historical fiction, clear your schedule because you will not want to put this book down.
Curtis Dunne

Absolutely incredible.
Friedenmeister

Get Your Copy of this Great Novel Now!

You’ve been looking for something special. A novel you enjoy every page. One where you never forget the characters and their stories. You’ll cherish The Golden Pinnacle…forever.

Amazon paperback

kindle ebook

nook ebook

He Said That? 3/23/18

From Marcus Aurelius (121–180), Roman emperor from 161 to 180, ruling jointly with Lucius Verus until Verus’ death in 169 and jointly with his son, Commodus, from 177, last of the so-called Five Good Emperors, Meditations:

Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

The Unspooling, by Howard Kunstler

It’s a joy to watch big lies unravel. From Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

With spring, things come unstuck; an unspooling has begun. The turnaround at the FBI and Department of Justice has been so swift that even The New York Times has shut up about collusion with Russia — at the same time omitting to report what appears to have been a wholly politicized FBI upper echelon intruding on the 2016 election campaign, and then laboring stealthily to un-do the election result.

The ominous silence enveloping the DOJ the week after Andrew McCabe’s firing — and before the release of the FBI Inspector General’s report — suggests to me that a grand jury is about to convene and indictments are in process, not necessarily from Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s office. The evidence already publicly-aired about FBI machinations and interventions on behalf of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump looks bad from any angle, and the wonder was that it took so long for anyone at the agency to answer for it.

McCabe is gone from office and, apparently hung out to dry on the recommendation of his own colleagues. Do not think for a moment that he will just ride off into the sunset. Meanwhile, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, have been sent to the FBI study hall pending some other shoes dropping in a grand jury room. James Comey is out hustling a book he slapped together to manage the optics of his own legal predicament (evidently, lying to a congressional committee). And way out in orbit beyond the gravitation of the FBI, lurk those two other scoundrels, John Brennan, former head of the CIA (now a CNN blabbermouth), and James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, a new and redundant post in the Deep State’s intel matrix (and ditto a CNN blabbermouth). Brennan especially has been provoked to issue blunt Twitter threats against Mr. Trump, suggesting he might be entering a legal squeeze himself.

None of these public servants have cut a plea bargain yet, as far as is publicly known, but they are all, for sure, in a lot of trouble. Culpability may not stop with them. Tendrils of evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House and the Democratic National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the picture both at the Uranium One end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of his old friend, Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not shoved out of office but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick, tick, tick.

To continue reading: The Unspooling

Here’s Your $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill Which No One Has Read, from The Burning Platform

Deep State is still winning

“Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses – and parties. Here’s the 2,232 page, $1.3 trillion, budget-busting Omnibus spending bill.” Rand Paul

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/03/23/heres-your-1-3-trillion-spending-bill-which-no-one-has-read/

$21 Trillion And Counting: Why Deficits Didn’t Matter During The Age Of Monetization, 1987-2017 (Part 2), by David Stockman

The age of deficits not mattering to either politicians or financial markets is passing. From David Stockman at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

For the past 30 years fiscal deficits have been a big financial nothingburger because the Fed and other central banks gutted their sting. So doing, they drastically and dangerously falsified the market for government finance by weaning politicians of the one element that kept modern Big Government fiscally contained.

We are referring to the historical fear among politicians that fiscal deficits cause “crowding out” of private investment and rising interest rates. Indeed, that  proposition was universally understood during your editor’s sojourn in the Imperial City between 1970 and 1985 as a staffer, Congressman and budget director.

As it has turned out, however, there was implicitly a crucial qualifier. To wit, it was naturally assumed that fiscal deficits would be financed in honest capital markets, and that yields in the bond pits were free market prices which cleared the balance between the supply of private long-term savings and the demand for term debt.

The very notion that it could be otherwise—-that the central banking branch of governments could swoop into capital markets to scoop up and sequester in their trillions the debt emissions of the fiscal branches— was scarcely imaginable among anyone reasonably educated and minimally informed.

After all, had Lyndon Johnson, Tricky Dick, Jimmy Carter or even Ronald Reagan suggested that the Federal Reserve buy government debt at rates which exceeded annual issuance by the US Treasury, as was the case during the peak years of QE, they would have been severely attacked—if not subjected to impeachment—-for advocating rank financial fraud.

Nor is that mere conjecture. For instance, after his “guns and butter” deficits had breached an unheard of 3% of GDP (outside of world war), LBJ essentially concluded he had no choice except to commit political hara-kiri by forcing a 10% surtax through the Congress in the 1968 election year.

Likewise, upon inheriting the Oval Office in August 1974, Jerry Ford  famously attempted to curtail excessive fiscal stimulus with a “WIN” tax, and Jimmy Carter never let his deficits get above 2.5% of  GDP—-even though he had a big spending domestic agenda.

But the most dispositive case of all was that of Ronald Reagan. Notwithstanding his reputation as the scourge of taxes, the Gipper signed three consecutive tax increase bills in 1982, 1983 and 1984 after the deficit exploded to 6% of GDP owing to the original Reagan tax cut and huge defense build-up.

To continue reading: $21 Trillion And Counting: Why Deficits Didn’t Matter During The Age Of Monetization, 1987-2017 (Part 2)

Should Facebook and Google Pay Users When They Sell Data Collected from Users? by Charles Hugh Smith

The mechanics of the social media companies paying users for their data are daunting, but it’s an intriguing idea. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

Let’s imagine a model in which the marketers of data distribute some of their immense profits to the users who created and thus “own” the data being sold for a premium.
It’s not exactly news that Facebook, Google and other “free” services reap billions of dollars in profits by selling data mined/collected from their millions of users. As we know, If you’re not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold, also phrased as if the service is free, you are the product.
Correspondent GFB recently asked, why aren’t Facebook et al. sharing a slice of the profits reaped from users’ data with the users who create the data?Given the enormous data processing capabilities of these tech giants, it’s certainly not a technical issue to credit each user a micro-payment when the data they create and thus “own” (since the creator of any digital product is by rights the owner of that product, including data sold to marketers) is sold.
Is the presumption that the collector of users’ data “own” that data via the collection process false, legally and ethically? Teams of attorneys may well be employed to support this claim on legal grounds, but what about the ethics of this data-mining of the many to profit the few with the means to collect and sell the data harvested from users?
Now that the ethical foundation of all these tech giants has been revealed to be nothing but shifting sand, it’s a line of inquiry worth pursuing. In some ways it parallels the situation in biomedicine: if a private-sector corporation harvests a particular genetic variation from an individual, do they “own” the variation because they detected it, or does the individual whose tissue/blood was harvested retain some ownership?
We need to differentiate sites and services that 1) do not collect data from users and 2) sell display advertising seen equally by all users (i.e. the traditional media model) and sites and services that 1) collect data from users as their “business model” / reason to exist and 2) sell marketing/advertising for a premium because it’s targeted to individual users.
The difference between these two models is obvious: one is “broadcast” available equally to users and advertisers alike. The other is “targeted marketing” based on data harvested from individual users.

Facebook, Uber and the end of the Great American Tech Delusion, by SPENGLER

America has been propelled by science and technology, but the hype, especially the financial hype, always outruns the reality. From SPENGLER at atimes.com:

We’ve been there before, in the crash of the dot-com bubble of 2000, when we believed that downloading pop music and porn would drive the economy of the future. We’ve done it again: We made another tech bubble on the premise that Americans would write the apps and Asians would make the hardware, and the miracle of connectivity would bring the world together in Mark Zuckerberg’s utopian vision. Internet community and Artificial Intelligence were the two blasts of hot air that inflated the bubble. Social media as a substitute for actual human interaction and computation as a substitute for human thought were going to waft us into the future.

Yesterday’s double crash of these delusions was the sort of irony that makes one intimate the hand of God in human history.

The crown jewel of Artificial Intelligence shattered when Uber’s autonomous SUV ran over Ms. Elaine Herzberg at the corner of Curry and Mill Street in Tempe, Arizona. And the concept of Internet community vaporized when news reports alleged that Cambridge Analytica improperly retained Facebook profiles of 50 million users. Facebook promptly lost 7% of its stock market value in yesterday’s trading, and other big tech names fell by 3% to 4%.

All the hype in the world can’t stand up to the ugly fact of a dead human body on the road. A few skeptics, including the distinguished physicist and venture capitalist Dr. Henry Kressel, have warned that AI in general and self-driving cars, in particular, are mainly hype. As Kressel wrote last year in Asia Times:

In a well-controlled environment (like driving on a track), the computer can be expected to respond to situations consistent with programmed information. The problematic situations are the accidental ones when something happens on the track that requires a quick response different from the programmed actions. This is where the awareness and quick response of a human driver come into play and where the response of a computer making the decisions is quite another matter. And this is the skill that differentiates race-car drivers from the rest of us – and computers from all of us.

To continue reading: Facebook, Uber and the end of the Great American Tech Delusion

Snowden Explains Deep State’s Influence on Presidents Obama, Trump, by Jay Syrmopoulos

No matter what’s said in the campaign, a US president can’t get away from the influence and power of the Deep State. From Jay Syrmonopoulos at truthinmedia.com:

Famed whistleblower Edward Snowden was recently interviewed by Italian publication La Repubblic. The publication noted the 5-year mark of Snowden’s historic act of blowing the whistle on the NSA’s expansive surveillance programs and that “many thought he would end up very badly, but when he connects via videolink for this interview with la Repubblica, he seems to be doing very well: the frank smile and peaceful face of someone who is easy in his mind.”

In an excerpt from the exclusive interview, Snowden explained how the presidencies of both Obama and Trump are shaped by the Deep State following an illuminating question by journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Stefania Maurizi: We saw that President Obama, who was an outsider to the US military-intelligence complex, initially wanted to reign in the abuses of agencies like the CIA and the NSA, but in the end he did very little. Now we see a confrontation between president Trump and so-called Deep State, which includes the CIA and the NSA. Can a US president govern in opposition to such powerful entities?

Edward Snowden: Obama is certainly an instructive case. This is a president who campaigned on a platform of ending warrantless wiretapping in the United States, he said “that’s not who we are, that’s not what we do,” and once he became the president, he expanded the program.  He said he was going to close Guantanamo but he kept it open, he said he was going to limit extrajudicial killings and drone strikes that has been so routine in the Bush years. But Obama went on to authorize vastly more drone strikes than Bush. It became an industry.

As for this idea that there is a Deep State, now the Deep State is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go, they influence policy, they influence presidents and say: this is what we have always done, this is what we must do, and if you don’t do this, people will die.

It is very easy to persuade a new president who comes in, who has never had these powers, but has always wanted this job and wants very, very badly to do that job well. A bureaucrat sitting there for the last twenty years says: I understand what you said, I respect your principles, but if you do what you promised, people will die. It is very easy for a president to go: well, for now, I am going to set this controversy to the side, I’m going to take your advice, let you guys decide how these things should be done, and then I will revisit it, when I have a little more experience, maybe in a few months, maybe in a few years, but then they never do.

To continue reading: Snowden Explains Deep State’s Influence on Presidents Obama, Trump